Skip to main content

Full text of "An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or received text of the New Testmant .."

See other formats


^m 



^m^^^ 



^M -i^rk 



}-m 



•y.:^ 



f'k 










•^^ 




■^^ >' 



I 






♦#> 









LIBRARY 

OF THE 

Theological Seminary, 

PRINCETON, N. J. 
Case D i V i s I c n . . X)^- -^ -^•-*^* 

Shelf Section ..^bi ."i-S i- 

Bool,. NO' 



AN 

INQUIRY 

INTO THE 

INTEGRITY 

Ot tHE 

GREEK VULGATE, 

OR 

RECEIVED TEXT 

OF THE 

NEW TESTAMENT: 

IN WHICH 

THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ARE NEWLY CLASSED, THE INTEGRITY 0J> 

THE AUTHORISED TEXT VJKDICATED, AND THE VARIOUS 

READINGS TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN. 



By THE REV. 

FREDERICK NOLAN, 

A PRESBYTER OF THE UNITED CHURCH. 



Origen. 



LONDON: 
PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON^ 

NO. 62, ST. Paul's church-yard; 

}iy R. ^ JR. Gilbert, St. John's Square, ClerhmwelL 

1815. 



TO THE 



REV. H. H. NORRIS. 



MY DEAR SIR3 

IN inscribing the Inquiry irito 
the state of the Hebrew Text, the learned 
authour oiFered a tribute to friendship, while 
he repaid a literary obligation. As I have 
«ome ambition, that the following Inquiry 
into the integrity of the Greek Text, should 
be considered supplementary to that work ; I 
would emulate the authour, in dedicating the 
following pages to you* 

From the possession of that valuable library, 
for which I am indebted to your friendship, 

a2 



iv DEDICATION. 

and which is referred to in every page of the 
following work, the undertaking in which I 
engaged has been brought to a close : in that 
literary retirement, from the more laborious 
duties of my profession, has it been prose- 
cuted, which you have enabled me to enjoy. 
You, who have so largely contributed to the 
success of my labours, have some right to 
partake of the fruits which they produce. 
Let me, however, present them ; not as a 
return for kindnesses which no acknowledg- 
ment can repay, but as an account rendered 
of the means entrusted to me; and which 
would then indeed become oppressive, should 
you have reason to believe them misap- 
plied. 

I can have no need to bespeak your favour 
for a work, which has been undertaken at 
your suggestion, and completed by the faci- 
lities which you have placed in my, power. 
And with whatever success it may be ulti- 
mately attended, it cannot fail in attaining 
one important object, with which it was 
undertaken, while it affords me the oppor- 



DEDICATION. V 

tunity of thus publickly avowing, with what 
gratitude and siucerity I profess myself. 

My dear Sir, 
Your truly obliged friend. 

And devoted servant, 

FRED, NOLAN- 



Cambridge Street, 
July 10, 1815. 



PREFACE. 



THE notion of a literal identity between thQ 
present copies of the inspired text^ and the ori- 
g'inal edition^ which was published by the sacred 
writers^ is a vulgar errour^ which finds as little 
foundation in reason^ as justification in fact. It 
would require no labour of deduction to prove that 
notion unreasonable, which pre-supposes, that every 
person who undertakes to copy the Sacred Writ- 
ings^ should be withheld from wilful or inadvertent 
errour^ by preternatural power; were it not de- 
monstrably refuted by the publication of one hun- 
dred and fifty thousand various readings^ which 
have been collected against the authorised text. 
But setting aside the idea of its literal purity, as 
repugnant to reason, the belief of its doctrinal in- 
tegrity is necessary to the conviction of our faith. 
For a proof of its general corruption in important 
points being once admitted, that character for fide- 
lity is necessarily involved, which is inseparable from 
the notion of a perfect rule of faith and manners. 



Viii PREFACE. 

With a view to the distinction which thus arises 
between verbal and doctrinal errours^ it has been 
usual to reply to the objections raised to the inte- 
grity of the sacred canon^ from the multipHcity of 
various readings, by insisting not only on the im- 
mense number of the authorities consulted, and the 
scrupulous accuracy with which they have been 
examined, but on the small importance of the read- 
ings noted, as rarely affecting the sense of the vary- 
ing passages. 

From the principles thus laid down, the conclu- 
sion would legitimately follow in favour of the doc- 
trinal integrity of the sacred text ; if it might be 
assumed that the immense number of various read- 
ings forms a floating medium, in which the genuine 
text might be in all instances discovered. But this 
is a concession which, though founded in reason, 
and deducible from experiment, the objectour can- 
not feel inclined to make, who proscribes passages, 
and objects to chapters, as interpolated in the 
Scripture canon. It is indeed a position so far 
from established by the theories of those criticks, 
who have undertaken to recover the genuine text, 
that it may be fundamentally subverted from the 
principles on which they proceed. Those systems, 
consequently, are so far from having established the 
integrity of any particular text, that they have un- 
settled the foundation on which the entire canon is 
rested. 



PREFACE. IX 

Such are oLjections to which the most elaborate 
of those theories seems to be inevitably exposed. If 
we must receive the Corrected Text of M. Gries- 
bach, to the exclusion of the Greek Vulgate^ we 
must accept it as a demonstrative proof of the gene- 
ral corruption of the sacred text^ and of the faith- 
lessness of the traditionary testimony on which it is 
supported^ for a period extending from the apostolical 
to the present age. One of the first positions laid down 
in his critical theory, and implied in the conclusions 
which it involves^ is, that the two principal Classes of 
Text out of which his edition is formed, have been 
interpolated in every part of them for that period*. 
One of the last consequences which that theoiy 
tends to establish, is, that the only remaining Class 
of Text existing" in the Greek Vulgate, and against 
which the immense number of 150,000 various 
readings has been collected, has existed in its pre- 
sent state of corruption nearly 1 400 years ^ If these 
conclusions are unavoidable, there seems to be no 
reservation by which the doctrinal integrity of the 
gacred Scriptures can be saved. If the apostolical 
age has thus erred in its testimony, and its evidence 
has been further corrupted in the primitive age ; 
whatever be the text, which is gathered out of the 

» Vid. infr. pp. 334, 335. nn. 5* et". 
*> Vid infr. p. 348, r^'\ 



X PREFACE. 

laimensc number of various readings, which make 
up the sum of their testimony, it may be as well 
any other text, as that which the inspired writers 
originally delivered to the Church. 

The pernicious consequences to which those sys- 
tems thus necessarily lead, will at least justify an 
Inquiry into the truth of the principles on which 
they are founded. And a very slight degree of 
observation is adequate to discover, that much re- 
mains to be proved in those theories, before we 
can admit them to be established, and that much 
is conceded on the part of the vulgar text, from 
which its integrity admits of the amplest vindication. 

In asserting the corruption of the Sacred Text, 
as preserved in the vulgar edition, for the space of 
fourteen hundred years, it is fully conceded that the 
tradition, however it might have been changed at the 
commencement of that period, or was previously cor- 
rupted, has continued unvaried during the whole of 
this period. This indeed is a point, which, if not 
granted, may be easily demonstrated. As this text 
is consequently referred to an age, of which we retain 
the fullest and most circumstantial accounts "" ; we re- 
quire to be informed, whether it then totally changed 
its character, or previously to this time had been 
gradually rendered corrupt. And a difficulty arises 

« Vid. infr. p. 4^27. n. *, 



PREFACE. 3a 

from either supposition^ which requires a solution, 
before we can at all acquiesce in the conclusion, 
that it is really corrupted ; unless, by the fallibility 
of transcribers, whose errours do not affect the 
general or doctrinal integrity of the text. If the 
former supposition be adopted, and the character of 
the sacred text was then totally changed, to what 
causes are we to impute its alteration at that par- 
ticular period ? And if the latter position be as- 
sumed, and previously to this period it became 
gradually corrupt, to what causes are we to impute 
its permanence from that time to the present? 
Until these difficulties are solved, the Received 
Text obviously gains more from the concessions of 
its opponents, than it can lose by their objections. 
The integrity of this text being thus acknowledged 
for the immense period of fourteen centuries, and 
the inability to show how it was previously cor- 
rupted fully avowed ''; it is implied in the very 
nature of that traditionary evidence on which the 
text is supported ^ that, however the tradition might 
have been suspended for a time, it could not have 
been materially corrupted in the antecedent period, 
or we should be able to ascertain the causes, in 
which it originated. 

* Vid. infr. p. 429. n. *. 
« Vid. infr. pp. 348, 349, 



Xii PREFACE, 

On these gTOunds the first notion was formed by 
the authour of the following pages, that an Inquiry 
into the history of the sacred text would most pro- 
bably lead to the perfect vindication of the vulgar 
edition. He was encouraged in this expectation, 
by the effect which he perceived a few facts had 
in solving some of the greatest difficulties which 
embaiTassed its history. At two periods only could 
he perceive the possibility of the ecclesiastical tra- 
dition having been interrupted ; during the ascen- 
dancy of the Arian party under Constantine, and 
on its suppression under the elder Theodosius. 
The destruction of the sacred books in the Dio- 
clesian persecution, and the revisal of the sacred 
text by Eusebius, furnished an adequate solution of 
the gi'eatest difficulty which arose, from the vari- 
eties in the copies of the original text, and of the 
translations which differ from the Greek Vulgate. 

To this point, of consequence, his first attention is 
turned ; and it forms the subject of the first section 
of the following Inquiry. He has thence endea- 
\oured to show, that the coincidence between the 
Eastern and Western texts, on which the credit of 
the Corrected Edition is rested, must be attributed 
to the influence of Eusebius's revisal, which was 
published under the auspices of the Eniperour Con- 
slantine. 



PREFACE, Xlii 

Thus far, however, a negative argument is de- 
duced in favour of the Received Text. The cha- 
racter of this text still remains to be investigated : 
to this point the authour next directs his attention, 
and he prosecutes it through the two following sec- 
tions. As the integrity and purity of the Greek 
and Latin Churches render their testimony of the 
highest authority in ascertaining the genuine text; 
on their joint authority he has consequently ven- 
tured to distribute the Greek Manuscripts into 
Classes; and to vindicate that particular class of 
text which exists in the vulgar edition. 

From the ground thus taken up, the whole sub- 
ject may be commanded almost at a glance. In 
the following sections, the tradition of the Greek 
and Latin Churches is carefully traced, from the 
apostolical age ; and on the concurring or relative 
testimony of those witnesses, the general and doc- 
trinal integrity of the Received Text is established. 
In vindication of the verbal integrity of this text^ 
the evidence of the Syriack Church is called in; 
and on the joint testimony of the primitive Version 
of this Church, and the primitive Italick, a decisive 
argument is finally deduced in favour of the anti- 
quity of the Greek Vulgate. 

In the last section, the authour has endeavoured 
to point out the particular manner in which the 
remaining Classes of Text, into which the Greek 



Manuscripts are distributed^ have originated, froth 
a coiTuption of the vulgar edition. The whole of 
the diversities in those manuscripts are traced i& 
three revisals of the sacred text, which were pub- 
lished in Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. 
The number of various readings is thence easily 
accounted for ; and a solution offered of some ob- 
jections which are raised to the doctrinal and verbai 
integrity of the Received Text or Vulgar edition. 

From this brief sketch of the plan of the follow- 
ing work, the reader will easily comprehend in what 
manner the authour has avoided those consequences 
which he charges on the systems of his opponents : 
and how the integrity of the Received Text may 
be established independent of the objections which 
lie against the Corrected Edition. An interruption 
in the tradition, by which the former text is sup- 
ported, is admitted to have taken place ; when the 
scripture canon was revised by Eusebius, and the 
Church became subject to the dominion of the Ari- 
ans. But the tradition is carried above this period^ 
which did not exceed forty years, and the Received 
Text proved to have existed previously, by its co- 
incidence with those Versions of the Oriental and 
Western Churches, which were made before the 
text was revised by Eusebius. So that, although 
the tradition has been interrupted for this inconsi- 
derable period, it has remained as unsophisticated 



PREFACE, XV 

In the two centuries-, which preceded Constantine's 
age, as in the last fourteen^ during which it has con- 
fessedly remained uncorrupted. 

In the course of this Inquiry, it has been a prin- 
cipal object with the authour to rescue the history 
t>f the text from that obscurity in which it is in- 
volved ; and to attain some determinate notion of 
the state of critical and religious opinion in the pri- 
mitive ages ; with a view to ascertain the causes 
which led to the corruption of the text, and pro- 
duced the different classes into which it is distri- 
tmted. 

An attention to these points has consequently ena- 
bled him to give a different direction to the ques- 
tion respecting the authenticity of those passages in 
which the Received and Corrected Texts differ; 
and has thrown the preponderance of the internal 
evidence on the side of the former. In determining 
between spurious and genuine readings, respect 
must be paid to the peculiar opinions of the persons 
by whom the original text is revised or translated : 
but it is a curious fact, that since the time when 
the different editions, which comprize the varieties 
discoverable in the sacred text, were published, the 
state of religious opinion has undergone a total 
revolution. The scepticks of the present age, how- 
ever they reject Christ's divinity, are fully disposed 
to admit his humanity. But in the earlier ages the 



XVI PREFACE. 

case was precisely reversed ; the generality of llere* 
ticks having easily admitted the divinity of our Lord, 
while they denied his humanity. Those seets> from 
whose opinions the notion of heresy was defined', 
conceived^ that Christ descended from heaven in the 
reign of Tiberius Caesar, and having merely as- 
sumed the appearance of a man, entered on his 
ministry in Judaea^. A religious system was de- 
vised in coincidence with this fundamental tenet; 
and the Scriptures were soon accommodated to the 
opinions of its founders. To the first disturbance 
which was thus given to the sacred text, we easily 
trace the principal varieties which are discoverable 
in the different editions into which the Greek text 
may be divided *". Instances consequently occur, 
iR which passages, that are challenged by the here- 
ticks in the primitive ages, disappear in the Eastern 
and Western texts, which form the basis of M. 
Griesbach's system, and are now found in the vul- 
gar edition'. One or two instances of this kind are 
sufficient to enable us to decide upon similar pas- 
sages ; and afford an adequate criterion, by which 
we may determine the relative merit of those differ- 
ent texts which have produced the Received and Cor- 

^ Vid. infr. p. 466. n. ^\ 
- Vid. infr. p. 463. n. ^°. 

Vid. infr. p. 468. sqq. conf. p. 475, n. \ p. 495. n. ^^ 

Vid. infr. d. 498. n. ^^ 



» Vid. infr. p. 498. n. 



PREFACE. Xvii 

rected Editions^ and discover the total insufficiency 
of the critical systems which have been devised for 
the correction of the Greek Vulgate. 

Another point to which the authour has directed 
his attention^ has been the consideration of the old 
Italick translation. Notwithstanding the labours of 
M. M. Blanchini and Sabatier, much remains to be 
done with this version^ the history of which is so 
little known^ that the very propriety of its name 
has been questioned. In considering the strange 
errour into which Dr. Bentley has led Abp. Potter, 
Dr. Mosheim, and Prof. Michaelis^ on this subject, 
the authour perceived, without any labour of in- 
quiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, 
which has been termed the Italick, as contradistin- 
guished from the Roman ^, This is a supposition, 
which receives a sufficient confirmation from the 
fact, — that the principal copies of that version have 
been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan 
church of which was situated in Milan. The cir- 
cumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour 
thence formed a hope, that some remains of the 
primitive Italick version might be found in the 
early translations made by the Waldenses, who were 
the lineal descendants of the Italick Church ; and 

^ Vid. Cave, Governm. of Ant. Church, ch. iii. p. 127, 
Comp. Alh'x, Rem. on Ant Ch. of Piedmont, ch. i. p. I, 

b 



Xviii PREFACE. 

who have asserted their independence against the 
usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever 
enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search 
to which these considerations have led the authour, 
his fondest expectations have been fully realized. 
It has furnished him with abundant proof on that 
point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; 
as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testi- 
mony of a truly apostolical branch t)f the primitive 
church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly wit- 
nesses was adopted in the version which prevailed 
in the Latin Clmrch, previously to the introduction 
of the modern Vulgate \ 



* Of the old versions wliich have been published in French, 
two were made by the Waldenses ; vid. Le Long. Bibl. Sacr, 
Tom. I. p. 31 3. col. 2. e. Morland on the Church of the Valleys. 
p, 14. But one copy of this version has fallen into my hands, 
which was printed at the native place of Peter Waldo ; *' Au 
Lyon, l*an de grace 1521." The following is the reading of 
1 Jch. V. 7, 8. fol. clxiv. b. " Trois choses sont qui donnent 
tesmoing au ciel, le pere le filz et le sainct esperit, et ces trois 
sont une chose. Et trois choses qui donnent tesmoing en terre, 
esperit eaue et sang." This testimony would be of little im- 
portance until the character of the translation was investigated, 
by a comparison with other French Versions and the old Italick 
and modern Latin Vulgate ; were it not for the following con- 
siderations: (1.) It differs from the Latin Vulgate; as it reads 
*' le filz" for " Verbum.'* (2.) It agrees in tliis reading with 
an antient Confession of Faith, used by the Waldenses. Leger. 
Hi3t. Gen, des Eglis. Vaudois, P. I. ch. viii. p. 50. ed. Leyd. 
1669. *' Eschant, v, de la Doctrine des Vmidois, contenant 
la fideie traduction de PExposition qu'ils ont donne au Sym- 
bole des Apotres — ou ils en prouvent tous les Articles par 
passages expres de la S. Ecriture. — * Lequel Dieu est un Tri- 
nite, comme d est ecrit en la Loy, ' O Israel ecoute,' &c. — 
Et iSk Jean^ * II y en a trois qui rendent tmoignage au ciel. 



, PREFACE* yaSL 

The result of the Inquiry, which has been prose- 
cuted through these subjects, the authour hoped to 
have taken an earUer opportunity of laying before 

le Pere, le Fits, et le S. Esprit, et ces trots soni un.** The 
original of this passage, as far as I can gather from M. Leger^ 
may be found in le Sieur du Perrin, Hist, des Vaudois et 
Albigeois, chap, v, p. 201. sqq. The proof appears to me 
to be so far complete, that this passage was adopted in 
the authorised text used by the Waldenses. The following 
considerations seem adequate to evince, that it existed in 
the Latin Version revised by St. Eusebius of Verceli, who 
published the old translation which prevailed in the Italick 
Diocese. (1.) In reading " Filius," it agrees with Tertul- 
lian and Cyprian, against the common testimony of the Mo- 
dern Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers; vid. infr. p. 291. n. ^^\ 
sqq. (2.) St. Eusebius might have hence adopted this read- 
ing, as he has adopted other readings from those fathers, in 
his revisal; vid. infr. p. 146. n. ^^ (3.) The French Version 
agrees with the old Italick in possessing other readings derived 
from the same source : in the Lord's Prayer, v/e find, instead 
of " ne inducas nos in temptationem." Lat. Vulg. " ne nous 
mene mye en temptacion, cest a dire ne souffre mye que nous 
soyonz temptez:" conformably to Tertullian and Cyprian: vid« 
infr. p. 330. n. **. (4.) The disputed passage, as read in the 
Waldensian Confession, and French Version, is accommodated 
to the state of religious opinion which prevailed in the age of 
St. Eusebius. By changing Verbum to Filius, in vers. 7. the 
Sabellian evasion of the passage was obviated : vid. infr. p. 539. 
n. '^^ By cutting off *' et hi tres (in) unum sunt,'* in vers. 8. 
the Aria^ evasion of the passage was equally obviated. For 
this phrase furnished some countenance to the notion of those 
Jiereticks who asserted, that " unum sunt*' signified an unity, 
not of substance, but of will and testimony. As these are 
coincidences which the Waldenses cannot be supposed to have 
created, I thence conclude, that 1 Joh v. 7. not only existed 
in the revisal of the old Italick Version made by Eusebius 
Vercellen.vis ; but that the peculiar reading of this text, which 
is found in the French Version, and which has excited M. Per- 
son's notice, has been thus remotely adopted from St. Cy- 
prian : vid. Porson. Lett, to Trav. p. 377. It thus easily made 
its way into Wicklef's translation, through the Lollards, who 
were disciples of the Waldenses ; vid. Pors, ibid, M©rl. ub. 
supr. p. 184. 

b3 



XX I»REFACE. 

the Publick. But his unexpected exclusion from 
the library of Sion College^ during the time it has 
been under repair; and the attention which he has 
been obhged to devote to the Boyle's Lecture, 
which he has been appointed to preachy since he 
first announced his intention of delivering himself 
at large on the present subject, have created obsta- 
cles to the accomplishment of his design, which he 
could not anticipate. The delay which he has thus 
experienced in bringing his inquiries to a close, he 
has endeavoured to turn to the best account; by 
enlarging and filling up the outline within which 
his subject was circumscribed, in the three papers 
in which it originally appeared, in the [[ British 
Critick/' 



CONTENTS. 



SECT. I. 

ON THE ALEXANDRINE TEXT, AND AUTHORITIES BY WHlCEt 
IT IS SUPPORTED, p. 1. 

Number of various readings, p. 2. Methods proposed for de- 
ciding the genuine and spurious, p. 2. Dr. Bentley's scheftie, 
for determining the true text by the Latin Vulgate, p. S* 
M. Griesbach's, by the Alexandrine text, p. 4. Liable to 
objections, p. 6. — not tenable on Origen's authority, p. 7.— 
nor on the conformity of Versions agreeing with the Alex- 
andrine text, p. 14. — not on the Italick, as created by Jerome, 
p. 14. — and by Cassiodorus, p. 16. Origin of Gra;co-Latin 
MSS, p. 17. — not tenable on the conformity of the Syriack, 
p. 20. — as partly created by Charlemagne, p. 21. This con- 
formity chiefly proceeds from the influence of Eusebius's 
edition, p. 25. Its effect on the Eastern text, p. 29. — en the 
Coptick, Syriack, Ethiopick, &c. p. 30. — on the Western 
text, p. 31.— on the great body of Greek MSS. p. 33. In- 
stanced in the omission of Mar. xvi. 9 — 20. p. 25. — of Joh. 
viii. 1—11. p. 37.— of 1 Joh. v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Act. xx. 
28. p. 38. Instability of the ground on which the foregoing 
system is founded, p. 4i. 



XxJl CONTENTS. 

SECT, ir, 

NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREEK MSS. p. 4^, 

Difficulties of classing MSS. p. 44*. Origen affords no crite- 
rion, p. 44. — nor antient Fathers, p. 44. — nor the generality 
of Versions, p. 47. — not the Coptick nor Syriack, p. 48. — 
nor the Sahidick, p. 49. This Version of no great antiquity, 
ibid. The Italick affords the only criterion, p. 56. — consists 
of three Classes, p. 58. These Classes applied to determine 
the diversities of the Greek, p. 61. Specimen of coincidences 
of the different Classes of the Italick and Greek, p. 62. — 
exemplified by connected portions of text, p. 67. Inference 

. from those coincidences, p. 70. Those Classes of text as old 
as the fourth centuiy, p. 70. — and known to St. Jerome, p. 
72. Investigation of the first Class, or Egyptian text, p. 73. 
•—of the second Class, or Palestine text, p. 79. — of the third 
Class, or Byzantine text, p. 88. Certainty of this system of 
classification, p. 95. Objections considered, p. 99. This 
distribution of the Greek MSS. plenary, p. 103. — and ade- 
quate, p. 105. Comparative view of this system of Classifi« 
cation with Dr. Bentley's, p. 106.— with M. M. Matthaei and 
Griesbach's, p. 107. Conclusion, p. 109. 

SECT. III. 

ON THE CHOICE OF A PARTICULAR CLASS OF TEXT, p. 110. 

Ecclesiastical tradition the proper test of the integrity of the 
text, p. 110. Byzantine text entitled to some preference 
from the place in which it is found, p. 111. — as the region 

. in which the inspired writings were deposited, p. 112. — as 
the text which is retained by the Greek Church, p. 113.— as 
it has existed fourteen hundred years, p. 114. Testimony of 



xxni 



the Eastern Church in favour of this text, p. 118.— supported 
by the number and prevalence of copies, p. 119.— from the 
antiquity of manuscripts, p. 121. Want of this testimony in 
favour of Egyptian and Palestine texts, p. 127. Copies of 
these texts not numerous, p. 127.— nor supported by the 
consideration of the place in which th^ are found, p. 128. 
The tradition broken in two places, p. 130.— by a text re- 
vised by St. Athanasius, p. 134.— and by Hesychius and Eu- 
sebius, p. 136. Testimony of the Western Church in favour 
of the Byzantine text, p. 138. Antiquity of the primitive 
Italick Version, p. 139. Its testimony not in favour of the 
Palestine nor Egyptian texts, p. 14-1.— but of the Byzantine, 
p. 142. Historical sketch of the variations of the Italick 
Version, p. 146. Revisal of St. Eusebius, p. 148. Varieties 
to which it gave rise, p. 150. Revisal of St. Jerome, p. 151. 
Analysis of the Italick Version, p. 154. State of Latin text 
as described by St. Jerome, p. 155.— verified in the Latin 
MSS. of the present day, p. 159. Method adopted by St, 
Jerome in forming his translation, p. 159. Objections to his 
mode of correcting, p. 166. The Vulgate not adequately 
eupported by his authority, p. 170. Method adopted by St. 
Eusebius in forming his text, p. 173. Its testimony supports 
• the Byzantine text, p. 176.— destroys the authority of the 
Eg>Ttian, p. 178. Investigation of the primitive version of 
the Italick, p. 181. Internal evidence in its favour, p. 182. 
Application of its testimony in favour of the Byzantine text, 
p, 186. Comparative view of the foregoing plan for inves- 
tigating the genuine text with Dr. Bentley's, p. 187.— with 
M. Matthaei's and M, Griesbach's, p. 188. Conclusion, 
p. 189. 

SECT. IV. 

ON THE GENERAL AND DOCTRINAL INTEGRITY OF THE 
RECEIVED TEXT, p. 191. 

Intercourse subsisting between the different branches of the 
primitive church, p. 192,-'in the apostolical age, p. 193.— 



XXlv CONTENTS. 

in the next succession after the Apostles, p. 196. — led to the 
universal dispersion of the Scriptures, p. 198. Intercourse 
between the Greek, Syriack, and Latin Churches, p. 200. 
Impossibility of the copies of Scripture, thus widely dispersed^ 
being generally corrupted, p. 201. Attention bestowed on 
the state of the text, p. 205. — at the time of the Paschal cooi 
troversy, p. 207. Principal writers of this period, p. 208. 
Scrutiny into the integrity of the text, p. 209. Testimony 
of those writers in its favour, p. 214. Tradition connected 
between the times of the Apostles and Origen, p. 216. In- 
vestigation of the ecclesiastical tradition, p. 217. Tradition 
connected between the times of Origen, and St. Athanasius 
and St. Jerome, p. 220. Their testimony to the state of the 
text, p. 223.— in the Alexandrine MS. p. 224.— and the La- 
tin Vulgate, p. 225. Recapitulation of the foregoing 'evi- 
dence, p. 227. Integrity of the text defended, p. 229. 
What books questioned, p. 2^0. Objections to the Apoca- 
lypse and Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 231. Defence of those 
books, p. 233. — from external evidence, p. 234. General 
Integrity of the text considered, p. 238. Objections to Mar. 
xvi. 9 — 20. Joh. viii. 1 — 11. p. 239. Defence of those pas- 
sages, p. 240. — from the internal evidence, p. 243. Tradi- 
tionary testimony in their favour, traced in the Greek, p. 247. 
— and in the Latin^ p. 248. — in the external evidence of the 
Fathers, p. 250. Doctrinal Integrity of the text considered, 
p. 251. Texts objected to, p. 253. Objections to the read- 
ing of those texts in the Palestine edition, p. 255. Internal 
evidence in favour of the vulgar reading, p. 258. Proofs 
arising from the state of the controversy in which the Apos- 
tles were engaged, p. 261. Peculiar tenets of the heresies 
which they opposed; of the Nicolaitans, p. 264.— of the Ce- 
rinthians, p. ^66. Application of these remarks to the disco- 
very of the genuine reading, p. 273.— in the case of Act. xx. 
28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. p. 274.— of 1 Joh. v. 7. p. 276. Further 
considerations strengthening the same conclusion, p. 278. 
Some account of the various readings of the foregoing texts, 
p. 280. Testimony of MSS. in favour of the vulgar reading,, 
p, 283.— of Fathers, p. 286. Summary of the evidence ad- 



duced, p. 293. Circumstances strengthening the testimony 
of the Latin Church in favour of 1 Joh* v. 7. p. 294. General 
conclusion on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate^ p. 305. 



SECT. V. 

ON tHE VERBAL INTfiGRITY Of THE RECEIVED TEXT, p. 309. 

Integrity of the Sacred Text not affected by literal efrours, p. 
309. Instanced in the Septuagint, p» 310. Verbal integrity 
of the Received Text defensible) p. 313.— exposed to objec- 
tions arising from M. Griesbach's system, p. 314. Principles 
of his scheme, p. 315. His rules for correcting the text, p* 
316. General objections to this system, p. 318. Particular 
objections— to the testimony of Origen, p. 320. — to the MSS* 
cited, p. 321.— to the Versions quoted, p. 322.— to the Fa- 
thers adduced, p. 325. Pernicious consequences to which 
this system leads, p. 333. New system proposed, p. 337. 
Oldest witnesses of the Verbal Integrity, the primitive Italick 
ami Syriack versions, p. 338.— not corrupted by each other, 
p. 340» The Italick not influenced by the Greek Vulgate, 
p. 342.— nor the Syriack, p. 343. Their testimony separate, 
p, 34,7.— supported by tradition, p. 348.— by Manuscripts, 
p. 350i— by Versions, p» 352*— by Fathers, p. 354. Rules 
for ascertaining the genuine text on the testimony of those 
witnesses, p. 356.— illustrated and applied, p. 357. Antient 
^Fathers afford no higher criterion, p. 362. Origen 's testi- 
mony examined and set aside, p. 363. Application of the 
above principles to the defence pf doctrinal texts, p. 371.--» 
exemplified, p. 372. Summary conclusion, p. 377. Appli- 
cation of the same principles to the defence of remarkable 
passages in the Gospels, p. 380. Summary conclusion, p. 
385. Extension of the same principles to the defence of 
remarkable passages in the Acts and Epistles, p. 387. — • 
exemplified, p. 390. Vindication of the primitive Italick 
from the «h{vrge «f corruption, p. S9L— of the prknitive Sy- 



XXvi CONTENTS. 

riack from tlic same charge, p. 401. General deductlong 
from the testimony of those witnesses in favour of the Greek 
Vulgate, p. 409. Objections urged against the revisers of 
the Received Text, p.41().~answered, p. 412. Manuscripts 
used in forming that text^ p. 413. Versions used for the 
same purpose, p. 416. This text not immaculate, p. 419. 
Yet not to be hastily altered, p. 420. — as its errours are of 
little importance, p. 425. Conclusion, p. 426. 



SECT. VI. 

out THE CORRUPTION OF THE EGYPTIAN AND PALESTINE 

TpxTS, p. 427. 

Charge of corruption not established against the Byzantine Text, 
p. 427. — but easily substantiated against the Egyptian and 
Palestine, p. 429. The Sacred Text not generally corrupted 
before Origen's times, p. 430. — subsequently corrupted, p. 
431. Object of Hesychius and Lucianus in forming their 
revisals, p. 432. Lucianus's mode of revising, p. 434. Ac- 
count of Hesychius, p. 439. His plan and object in revising, 

' p. 441. Works used by him in that undertaking, p. 442. 
Some passages altered by him, p. 446. Eusebius's plan and 
object in revising, p. 459. Works used by him in that under- 
taking, ibid. Remarkable passages altered by him, p. 461, 
Account of the Marcionites, p. 463. — of the Valentinians, p, 
465. Influence of their tenets on Origen's vrorks, p. 466. — 
and thence on the texts prevalent in the Egyptian, Palestine, 
and Italick dioceses, p. 468. Particular texts thus corrupted, 
p. 470. Palestine text influenced by the Marcionite contro- 
versy, p. 500.-^in what manner thence corrupted, p. 506. — 
positively corrected, from Origen's works, by Eusebius and 
others, p. 508. Multitude of various readings accounted for, 
p. 510. Objections to the vulgar reading of Act. xx. 28. 
I Tim. iii. 16. 1 Joh. v. 7. stated, p. 511. — from the testi-r 
raony of Manuscripts, p. 512, — of Versions and Fathers, p. 



CON-TENTS. XXVli 

514-. — answered in the case of MSS. and Versions, p. 515.— 
of Fathers, p. 516. Negative argument against 1 Joh. v. 7. 
considered, p. 525. No Trinitarian Controversy, ibid, — in 
the contests with Gnosticks and Ebionites, p. 526. — with Sa- 
bellians, p. 527. — with Theodotists, Encratites, and Monta- 
nists, p. 531. — with Arians, p. 532. — with Macedonians, 
Nestorians, and Eutychians, p. 533. Negative testimony 
against Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. answered, p. 535. Dis- 
tinctions introduced in Sabellian and other heresies, threw 
those texts on the side of the heterodox, p. 536. — who ap- 
parently claimed 1 Joh. v. 7. p. 541, This verse became, 
of course, neglected, p. 544. Particular objections to this 
verse, from the omissions and allegorical interpretations of 
the fathers considered, p. 547. The following verse stronger 
in favour of the orthodox, p. 549. Reply to objections raised 
from St. Augustine's testimony, p. 551.— 'from P, Leo and 
Facundus's, p. 552. — from Pseudo- Cyprian's, p. 556. — from 
Eucherius's, p. 558. — Reply to the objection raised from the 
variation of the Latin Vulgate, p. 560* Two editions of the 
Vulgate published by St. Jerome, p. 562. S ummary conclusion 
on the negative argument, p. 564. Further objections con- 
sidered, — Vindication of 1 Joh, v. 8. p. 564. — of the Palestine 
reading of Act, xx. 28. p. 565. Objections to 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
from Liberatus's testimony, p, 567. — to 1 Joh. v. 7. from the 
Alogi, ibid. — to the style of the Apocalypse and Epistle to the 
Hebrews, p. 569. — answered, p. 570. General conclusion on 
the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 572, 



COHRIGENDA. 

P, 53. 1. 1. for nnd, r. or. P. 106. 1. 29. for Fourth, r. Thirc!. P. ffil. 
3. 24. n/i^r p. r. 156. P. 163. 1. 15. for iv. r. ii. P. 170. 1. 24. offer p. r, 
152. P. 174. 1. 17. for manuscripts, r. manuscript. P. 212. 1. 31 for tor, 
y. from. P. 214. 1. 22, for riiU, r. -jthlct. P. 239. 1. 31. and P. 241. 1. 30. 
for 9—11. r. 9—20. P. 313. 1. 5. for dispute, r. assert. P. 316. 1. 7. for 
T*rsion, r. versions. P, 319. J. 13. for renders, r. render. P. 326. I. 28. 
after diaboloi r. Tert. P. 348. I. 26. for H I, r. H. S. P. 369. J. 7. for 
are not found, r. might not have existed. P. 375. 1. ult./or w, r. Sv. P. 467. 
]. 1 1. for oh the, r. on them. P. 499. I. 5. for JiXofrsf, r. SiXevtsq. P. 515- 
1. 27. del. vid, P. 521. K 9. for a, K r, u. K P. 526. 1. 24. for s-w^/t^nr, 



SECTION I^ 



.Although the art of printing was applied, at an 
early period, to the purposes of sacred learning ; the 
slow progress which Greek literature made in Eu- 
rope, from the difficulties of acquiring the Greek lan- 
guage, prevented an edition of the New Testament 
from being attempted, until a comparatively late 
period. At nearly a century subsequent to the in-* 
vention of printing, the Complutensian Polyglot was 
Undertaken, under the patronage of Cardinal Xi- 
menes, which contained the first printed copy of 
the Greek Testament. From the edition which was 
then prepared for pubhcation, the subsequent edi- 
tours varied little. Erasmus, who anticipated the 
publication of this work by his third edition, formed 
his fourth on similar principles ; Stephens and Beza 
adopted his text with scarcely any variation ; and 
Elzevir, in whose edition the Received Text is 
properly contained, very closely followed the steps 
of his learned predecessours '. 

' Griesb. Ptoleg. in Nov. Test. sect. iv. p. xxxiii. " Edi- 
tiones recentiores sequuntur Elzevirianam, haec compilata est ex 
editionibus Bezae et Stephani tertia. Beza itidem expressit Ste- 
phanicam tertiam, nonnullis tamen pro lubitu fere ac absque 



( s ) 

From the text, which has thus grown into ge- 
neral use, all those deviations are calculated^ which 
constitute the various readings of the Greek ma- 
nuscripts. Stephens, in his splendid edition, which 
forms the basis of the Received Text, had noted a 
variety of those in his margin ; having collated fif- 
teen manuscripts, besides the Complutensian ^'edi- 
tion, for the purpose of rendering his text more 
pure and perfect. In the editioiis of Curcellaeus 
and Bishop Fell, tlie number was considerably 
augmented, from a collation of additional manu- 
scripts. But in the elaborate edition of Dr. Mills 
they received an infinitely greater accession; being 
computed to amount to thirty thousand. The la- 
bours of subsequent collators are asserted to have 
augmented the number with more than an hundred- 
thousand ; thougli on what grounds I am not at pre- 
sent acquainted. 

So great a number of various readings as has. 
been collected by the labours of these editours, has^ 
necessarily tended to weaken the authority of the 
Received Text ; as it is at least possible that a great 
proportion of them may constitute a part of the ori- 
ginal text of Scripture, And various expedients 
have been, in consequence, devised, in order to de- 
termine the authentick readings from the spurious, 
and to fix the character of those manuscripts which 
are chiefly deserving of credit, in ascertaining the 

iJonea aiitontate mutaLis ; Stepliani tcrtfa prusse sequltur Eras- 
.inicam quintam, paucissimis tamen locis et Apocalypsi excep- 
118, ubi Coraplutensem Erasmicse prjEtulit^'* 



( 3 ) 

genuine text of the sacred canon. The moi^t 
ing-enious and important of these expedients is de- 
cidedly that suggested in the classification of manu- 
scripts which originated with the German critlcks ; 
which had been suggested by MM. Bengel and 
^.'•feler^ but reduced to practice by the learned and 
accurate M. Griesbach '^. 

It is not to be conceived that the original edltours 
of the Nev/ Testament were wholly destitute of 
plan in selecting those manuscripts^ out of which 
they were to form the text of their printed editions. 
In the sequel it will appear^ that they were not al- 
together ignorant of two classes of manuscripts ; 
one of which contains the text which we have adopt- 
ed from them; and the other that text which has 
been adopted by M. Griesbach. A project had been 
also conceived by Dr. Bentley \ to dispose of the im- 
mense number of various readings which had been 
collected by Dr. Mills ; to class his manuscripts by 

* Griesb. Prsef. Nov. Test. p. 5. *' Ego vero doctis nonnul- 
lis Bengelii observationibus admonitus earn viam quam Sem- 
lerus ingredi cceperat, quamque diuturno studio edoctus unice 
veram esse perspexeram, longius et ad metam usque persequi 
me debere autumabam." 

^ Dr. Bentley's plan is thus briefly stated in one of his let- 
ters ; p. ^37. ed. Lend. 1807. " Abeut a year ago reflecting 
upon some passages of St. Hierom, that he had adjusted and 
castigated the then Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exem- 
plars, and had kept the very order of the words of the origi- 
nal : I formed a thought a priori, that if St. Jerome's true 
Latin exemplar could now be come at, it. would be found to 
agree exactly with the Greek text of the same age ; and so the 
old copies of each language, (if so agreeing) would give mu- 
tual proof and even demonstration of each other." 

b3 



( * ) 

^lie Vulgate, avid to foiiii a Corrected Text^ which 
should iiterally accord with that translation as eoY- 
rected by the hand of St. Jerome, 

But these schemes have been surpassed and super- 
seded by the more highly laboured system of M, 
Griesbach. His project for classing' the Gr^p^ 
manuscripts, in order to form a more correct text, 
is not only formed on more comprehensive views,, 
but rested on a higher basis. Instead of the au- 
thority of St. Jerome, who flourished in the fifth 
century^ he builds upon that of Origen who flou- 
rished in the thirds Instead of the existence of 
tv/o species of textj one of which corresponds with 
the Vulgate, and the other with the generality of 
Greek manuscripts, he contemplates the existence 
of three^ which he terms the Alexandrine, the 
Western, and the Byzantine, from the different re- 
gions in which he supposes them to have prevailed ^. 
According' to this division, he has formed his classi- 
fication of manuscripts, which he consequently dis- 
tributes into three kinds. A choice among their 
respective texts he determines by the authority of 
Origen ^ : whose testiinony seems entitled to this 
respect, from the attention, which he, above all the 

^ For this purpose he applied himself to a more exact scru- 
tiny of Origen's peculiar readings, and, with this view, under- 
scored the scripture quotations in his copy of that antient fii- 
ther, in order to discover the text which was used by him. 
After describing this process he adds, Symboll. Critt. Tom. L 
p. Ixxvii. " Hoc igitur exemplar nobis instar est fragmenta- 
rum illius ipsius codicis quern Origenes usurpavit/' 

5 Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. Ixxiii. 

^ Id. Symbb. Critt. passim. 



( 5 ) 

antients^ bestowed upon biblical criticism. Find- 
ing a striking coincidence to exist between his scrip- 
ture quotations and the celebrated manuscript 
broug'lit from Alexandria^ which was the scene of 
Orig-en's literary labours^ he thence determines the 
manuscripts^ which belong to that class which he 
d?stingaiishes as the Alexandrine ^. Tlie manu- 
scriptSj which dilfer from this class, and coincide, 
in their characteristick peculiarities, with thosfe 
which have been directly imported to us from Con- 
stantinople, he distinguishes as the Byzantine. His 
third class, which contains the Western text, con- 
sists of a set of manuscripts, which have been prin- 
cipally found in Europe, and which possess many 
coincidences with the Latin translation, where they 
differ from the peculiar readings of both the pre- 
ceding classes. 

To the manuscripts of the Alexandrine class, it 
may be easily conceived, the highest rank is ascribed 
by M. Griesbach : the authority of a few of these 
outweighing in his estimation that of a multitude of 
the Byzantine ^. The peculiar readings which he 
selects from the manuscripts of this class, he con- 
firms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally 
drawn from the quotations of the antient fathers, 
and the versions made in the primitive ages ^. To 

^ Id. ibid. p. clxiv. seq. 

^ Id. Proleg. in Nov. Test. Ixxil. 

9 Id. ib. p. Ixix. Itaque textus ipslus potius quara librarii 
^tas indaganda est. Haec vero judicatur e crebro consensu 
^um aliis testibus, {in prhuis cum versionibus et Patribus) d^ 
<juorum aetata nobis constat, et e copia talium lectionum," tire. 



( <3 ) 

the authority of Origen he however ascribes a para- 
mount weighty taking- it as the standard by wliich 
his collateral testimony is to be estimated ; and using 
their evidence merely to support his testimony^ or 
to supply it when it is deficient. The readings 
which he supports by this weight of testimony^ he 
considers genuine ; and introducing a number of 
them into the sacred page^ he has thus formed his 
<3orrected Text of the New Testament. 

The necessary result of this process, as obviously 
proving the existence of a num.ber of spurious read- 
ings in the Received Text^, has been that of shak- 
ing the authority of our Authorized Version, with 
the foundation on which it is rested. Nor have the 
innovations of M. Griesbach become formidable,, 
merely on account of their number, but their na- 
ture ; as his corrections have extended to proscribing 
three important texts, in the fate of which the doc- 
trinal integrity of the inspired text becomes neces- 
sarily implicated : for, a proof of the partial cor- 
ruption of the sacred canon being once established 
in important matters, its character for general fide- 
lity is necessarily involved. And what heightens 
the alarm which may be naturally felt at the at- 
tempts thus made to undermine the authority of the 
Received Text, is the singular ability with which 
they have been carried into execution. The de- 
servedly high character which M. Griesbach's ela- 
borate work has attained, affords the justest cause 
of apprehension from its singular merit. The com- 
prehensive brevity of his plan, and the scrupulous 
accuracy of his execution, have long and must ever 



( 7 ) 

command our respect. Such are concessions which 
1 frankly make to M. Gricsbach^ while I withhold 
my applause from his critical emendations. How- 
ever divided the opinions may be which are held on 
the purity of his text, the merit of his notes is not 
to be denied. As a g-eneral and correct index to 
the great body of Greek manuscripts, they are an 
invaluable treasure to the scholar, and necessary 
acquisition to the divine. Indeed, admitting- his 
classification of manuscripts to be erroneous, as I 
am inclined to believe his text is corrupt, yet from 
the clear and comprehensive manner in which the 
various readings are disposed, by merely varying* 
the principle of arrangement, they may be applied 
to any system of classification, whenever a better 
is devised. 

But these obsei*vations are strictly limited to the 
accuracy of his execution ; to the merit of his plan 
I have many objections to make. In his predilec- 
tion for the Alexandrine text, which he conceives 
he has discovered in the works of Origen, I am far 
from acquiescing. For I cannot see that M. Gries- 
bach has evinced, by the production of character- 
istick affinities, that the text used by Origen was ra- 
ther the Alexandrine than the Byzantine. There is 
in fact an indecision in Origen's testimony, arising' 
from those readings, termed inconstant, in which 
he quotes as well against, as with the Alexandrine 
text, that destroys the force of his partial testimony 
in its favour. Did they merely consist in occasional 
deviations from this text, they would be of little 
luoment : for Origen^ like every divine, in quoting 



( 8 ) 
from memory, and by accommodation, must have 
constantly deserted the letter of the text. But when 
his deviations from one text prove to be coinci- 
dences with another, there is something more than 
accident in the variation. There seem, indeed, to 
be three modes of accounting for this circumstance ; 
any one of which being* admitted, destroys the 
weight of his testimony, wherever it is placed. He 
either quoted from both texts, or one of them has 
been interpolated from his writings, or his writings 
interpolated from it. Until the possibility of these 
cases is disproved, it seems vain to appeal to his 
testimony in favour of any one to which he but ge- 
nerally and occasionally conforms. 

But on whatever side his testimony is placed, 
there seems at first sight to be little reason to 
doubt, that it cannot be the Alexandrine. It is, in- 
deed, true, that he was a catechist of Alexan- 
dria ", but this circumstance goes but a short way 
to prove that the text which he used was that which, 
in the German mode of classification, is termed the 
Alexandrine. The fact is, that he lived and died 
in. a state of excommunication " from that churchy 

'° jEuseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. iii. p. 260. 1. 15. p. 261, 
J. 15. 

" As Origen was excommunicate^ by Demetrius, Bishop of 
Alexandria, Pamphil. ap. Phot. Biblioth. n. cxviii. and wa^ 
never formally restored, it must be concluded, that he never 
returned to that city. The causes of his flight from Alexan- 
dria were such as to preclude the possibility of his return, un? 
jier circumstances which could be grateful to his feelings. Mucl^ 
of this sad and disgraceful part of his history will not bear the 
recital ; the following facts may be stated on the authority of 



( 9 ) 
in which his principles were execrated,, and liis 

Cedrenus and Suidas; Cedren. Hist. Compend. P. I. p. 254. 
d. ap. Scripp. Byzantt, Par. 1647. — tTTEt ^l tSTIo Ka.^uiJ.ohoynat 

rris iKyCkriaioLS liooa'bin. rY,v AXi^xv^^eiav ^l Xi'ttuv ^kx, to oveiooi rriV 
'la^cciuv xareAa/Ssy. Conf. Suid. V. Origen. Tom. II. p. 166. 1. 44. 
ed. Cant. 1705. MM. Huet and Du Pin are consequently 
right in asserting that he never returned to Alexandria ; Vid. 
Origenian. Lib I. cap. ii. § xiii. p. l^. b. ed. Rotliom. 1668. 
Nouv. Biblioth. des Aiit. Eccles. Tom. II. p. 379. ed. Par. 
168S. The opinion delivered by the learned M. de Valois, in 
his notes to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiii. n. 4. p. 
287. ed. Cant, is perfectly reconcilable with this representation. 
He mentions two sentences as having be^ pronounced against 
Origen; one of excommunication, and another of depriviition : 
the latter only he considered void, which does not affect the 
point in question. 

The Alexandrine church during the time that Origen flou- 
nshed, was governed by Demetrius, Heraclas, and Dionysius ; 
as may be collected from Euseb. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xxxix. p. 
294. 1. 18. Lib. VIL cap. i. p. 321. 1. 16.— compared with Lib. V. 
cap. xxii.p.241.1.7. Lib. VI. cap. xxvi. p. 292.1. 12. cap.xxxv.p. 
298. 1. 23. The first of those bishops denounced him excommuni- 
cate ; and the second was avowedly hi.s enemy: Vid. infr. n, **. 
conf. Huet. Origenian. ibid, p . 1 4. e. M. Huet indeed conceives 
that Dionysius indulged a more favourable disposition towards 
him ; but on grounds from whence I believe we must deduce the 
directly opposite conclusion. This friendly disposition is in- 
ferred by M. Huet, from the circumstance of Dionysius having 
addressed a letter to him on the subject of martyrdom. Euseb. 
ibid. cap. xlvi. p. 319. 1. 16. : but those who remember that the 
cause of Origen's flight from Alexandria was apostacy, must per- 
ceive, that advice on this subject must have been the most cruel 
insult that could be offered to Origen. And the knoAvn severity of 
Dionysius on the subject of apostacy, seems to place the matter out 
jpf dispute; he obstinately refused to receive persons who had been 



( 10 ) 
writings condemned'" : and the principal part of 
his commentaries were pubhshed in Palestine'^, 
instead of Alexandria. From the former circum- 
stance we may infer, that in adoptmg a text, the 
Alexandrine church was not influenced by him; 
from the latter, that, on the same subject, he was 

guilty of this sin, until tiiey were reduced to the last agonies 
of death; Euseb. ibid. cap. xllv. p. 317. 1. 9. We must there^ 
fore conclude with MM. Huet and Du Pin, that Origen ne- 
ver returned to Alexandria, during the administration of those 
Bishops : and consequently never during his life-time. 

The penitential letter which he addressed to Fabianus, (not 
long previously to the time of his death, as I collect from Eu- 
sebius, Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. xxxvi. p. 299. 1. 5, 23. Lib. 
VIL cap. i. p. 322. 1. 1. ) seems to evince that he was in no higher 
repute at Rome than Alexandria. S. Hieron. ad Pammac. et 
Ocean. Ep. Ixv. cap. iv.Tom.ii. p. 231. ed. Vict. *' IpseOrigenes 
in Epistola quam scribit ad Fabianum,RomanaeurbIsEpiscopum, 
peenitcntiam agit, cur talia scrlpserit ; et causae temeritatis in Am* 
brosium refert, quod secreta edita in publicum protulerit.'* 

^^ Epist. Synod. Alexandrin. ap. Baluz. Nov. Collect. ConcilU 

Tom. I col. 100- Ovloq roivvv o 7r^oK'/\u.tvo<; Q,^iysvv);, tta^a.'Trsp to 

'CTDia^v'tBfo<; x(H(iolovv}^i)q vTTo r^i Kocvoiny.^.; T£ Koci ^Auq x^^P°^ a^»30^v?c, 
elvtlo u^l(0(jLoe, rov 7rp£<T^vlipii •4/^^ol' re y.ai (/.ovov. KaQaTrep xat to 
Tv5? a7ro^o^'^? E^XEV KXETrir,; xat 'mpo^olr.q Idea?. 'A;:|a/A£i'8 yap 
avlov ^Xac(p-^ixii<; 'jat?.ia; ojjaXsTv, o kxI' ktTvo ^ay.apiTv35 Hp«xA«$ o 
ETTicy-OTTO?, u)^ a,folr,p v.ai aixTTiXupyoq (ptXaA3^S)i? Tov T^j tKuXv^aiai 
ywckS rvyy^avav, \k fjLiJH rod kccXov aWa tovtov t^inXiv, u<; rov •Kov^fn 
{i^otr>s Ua, a\rj^u; kuI ^£t' oX'iyx Uttbo-uv Iv Slo? eTrt inv yh v^ocv^Bev uq 
ua-rpcc7rri,y.ce,^a,7rE(i orSTB TcxaUp o ^iocBoXoiy Sv/xoy 'SJtluv tijoXXe xa* ^emov 
xcclac tJj? uXn^tiac, Itt) tt.v xaXsiyJvv^v UaXxi-rmv X&'pa" titXivat' xa* 
jtaSi^a? Iv TJ3 Kon^a-pim (Jt^tlpovoXei, — anoletvov ri xai /AsAava ^'^H \ov 
l^'ixiff'ctq ly.s7<7B lyypcc<p0(; ccTrilvTruaa.io. 

'3 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VL cap. xxi. p. 287. 1. 17. cap, 
xxiv. p. 288. 1. 10, &c. 



( n ) 

tiot influenced by it ; but followed tbe copies of the 
country in which his writing's were published and 
dispersed. And this deduction is confirmed in nu 
extraordinary manner by internal and collateral evi* 
dence. We are assured^ on the highest authority, 
that while Palestine adopted the text of Orig-en, 
Alexandria adopted that of Hesychius '^ And an 
extraordinary proof of this assertion exists in the 
manuscript termed the Alexandrine^ as brought 
from that city. It contairjs a complete copy of the 
version of the Septuagint^ wiiich, it is well known, 
Origen corrected, and inserted in his Hexapla; 
yet while a nearly perfect copy of his revisal is pre- 
served in the Vatican manuscript, it is found to be 
diifei'ent from that which is contained in the Alex- 
andrine ^^ 

It is indeed with little appearance of justice that 
Origen's authority can be claimed in favour pf the 
Alexandrian text. At an early period he settled at 
Cesarea in Palestine '^ : here he was ordained pres- 

'* S.Hieron.aclv.Ruffin.Lib.n.cap.viii.Tom.II.p.249. *' Al- 
exandria et JEgyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesijchium laudnt auc- 
torem. Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani martyrls 
exemplaria probat. mediae inter has Provincias, Palccstinos co- 
dices legunf, quos ab Origine elaboratos, Eusebius et Pamphilus 
vulgaverunty totusque orbis inter se trifaria varietate compug- 
nat. Et certe Origenes non solum exempla coniposuit quatuor 
editionum, e regione singula verba describens, &c. 

*' Birch. Prpleg. in Nov, Test. p. xix. Blanchin. Evangel. 
Quadr. P. I. f. cdxcvii. 

'^ Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. xxvi. p. 292. "eIoc 



( 12 ) 

byter, and had a special license to expound the 
scriptures '^ : and here the principal part of his 
commentaries were composed and published'^; 
which were subsequently collected by Pamphilus 
and Eusebius his professed apologists and imitators^ 
and deposited in the library of Gesarea '^. By those 
works the latter extraordinary person^ when bishop 
of tiiat city;, was assisted ^° in revising that edition 
of the scripture at the command of Constantine^, 
which^ it is a curious fact, became the basis of the 
Byzantine text^ instead of the Alexandrine ". As 
to the churches of Rome and Alexandria^ they re- 
spectively convened councils^ in which he was con- 
demned ; and in the sentence which was pronounced 
against him^, all the churches acquiesced^ except 
those of Palestine^ Phoeniciaj Achaia^, and Arabia *^. 

v^oifxsvoq H. T. i. This event is fixed by M. Huet to A.D. 231» 
Origenian. Lib. I. cap. ii. § xiii. p. 14. b. 

'^ Euseb. ibid. cap. xxiii. p. 287. 1. 23. — Tr^ia-^vTs^ia x^K'^' 

S'satav \v YLccia-ccpsisc ircoc; tuv tjjoe Itti crKQ'rcoJv [^o ^oiyiwic"^ uvx^Ufx.' 

^xvn. Id. ibid. cap. xxvii. p. 292. 1. 25. 'O t-^; 'ispoaoXtJ^wi/ 

A); i7ro(; liTiiiv 'nxpoa-avB^ovrsq ocvtco o\a di^cx.aaoc'hui, [/.ova Tct t^? tuv 
^eiuv ypct,(puv Ip/x^jytias nat tec T^oiira. t2 exxXviaiUfixS X6y8 'Sifocrliw 

*^ Id. ib. cap. xxxii. p. 296. 1. 4. 

*^ Id. ibid. p. 296. 1. 15. seq. 

*^ Id. ibid. conf. mi. '"^ and *^ ut supr. * 

^' Id. Vit. Constantin. Lib. III. cap, xxxvi. p. 646. 1. 13—37. 
conf. n. ^ ut supr. 

" Hieron. ap. llufRn. in Apol. " Damnatur a Demetrio 
Episcopo. Exceptis Palaestinae, et Arabia3, et Phoenices, atque 
Achaiae sacerdotibus, in damnationem ejus consentit orbis. 

Roma ipsa contra hunc cogit senatum Conf. Baluz. Nov, 

Col, Concill. ut. supr. col 99—102. 



( 13 ) 

From the authority of Origeii, little support can 
be consequently claimed to the Alexandrine text, 
or to the German method of classification. And 
deserted by it^ that text must be sustained by the 
character and coincidence of the manuscripts^ in 
which it is preserved. This^ it cannot be dissem- 
bled, is the natural and proper basis, on which this 
system of classification rests. The extraordinary 
agreement of those manuscripts, not only with each 
other, but with the w^estern and oriental versions of 
the scriptures, is so striking- and uniform as to in- 
duce a conviction with many, that they contain the 
genuine text of scripture. 

Nor can this conformity, which appears at first 
sight extraordinary, be in reason denied. It is as- 
serted with one consent, by all who have inspected 
tlie principal of those manuscripts that contain the 
Alexandrine text, and who have compared their 
peculiar readings with the Old Italick and Syriack 
versions. It had been observed by M. Simon ^^ 
before the German classification had existed even 
in conception ; and it has been confirmed by Prof. 
Michaelis ^'^, since it has been formed. The latter 

*5 Simon Hist. Crit. des Vers. chap. xv. p. 187. Comme 
cette traduction [la Version Syriaquej est tres-ancienne, il 
n'est pas suprenant, qu'elle s'accord aussi quelquefois avec le 
manuscrit de Cambridge, et par consequent avec Vllalique, 
Mais on pent dire en general, qu'elle s 'accord plus souvent 
avec les exemplalres Grccs sur lesquels St. Jerome retoucha 
I'anciennc Vulgate, qu' avec ceux aux quels elle etoit conforme. 

^* Introd. to New Test, by Dr. Marsh, V^ol. II. p. i. ch. vif. 
sect. V. p. 27» 



C 14 ) 

profound orientalist has formed -those deductiongy 
which have been already made^ from the confor- 
ntity of the witnesses^ who are thus coincident, 
though remotely situated ; that^ as currents preserve^ 
by their uniform tenour^ the purity with which they 
have descended from their common source, we may 
learn from the united testimony of those witnesses, 
what is to be considered the genuine text of Scrip- 
ture ''. 

Such is the ground-work of M. Griesbach's sys- 
tem, which is so broad and deep, as not to be shaken 
by the destruction of its outworks. If it is suscep- 
tible of any impression, its very foundation must be 
sapped : and we must commence by accounting" for 
the extraordinary affinities by which it is held to- 
gether. A simpler principle must be in fact sug- 
gested to account for those affinities, than that which 
traces them to the original pubhcation of the sacred 
text, by the inspired writers. 

And on descendins: to a closer view of the sub- 
ject, and considering- the affinity observed to exist 
between the Old Italick version and the original 
Greek, there is at the first glance something sus^ 
picious in the conformity, which betrays an aUiance 
of a recent date. For this affinity was not dis- 
coverable in the Itahck version of St Jerome's days. 
At the command of Pope Damasus, he undertook 
the revisal of the Latin translation, on account of 

*^ Id. ibid. p. 28. " A reading therefore supported by tlie 
connected authority of the Si/riac^ the Coptic, and the Latin 
versions, by a quotation qfOrigen, and the antient Greek manu- 
scripts oi the Alexandrine and Western editionSy is not only of 
great importance, but may in general be regarded as genuine^* 



( 15 ) 

its deviation from the original *^. This undertaking 
alone would sufficiently declare St. Jerome's opinion 
of this dissimilarity, which he undertook to remedy ; 
if he had not in numerous places pointed it out ^^. 
And his declarations are fully supported by the tes- 
timony of St. Augustine ^^ who was no friend to 
innovation, and who to the last declined using the 
version retouched by St. Jerome. 

*^ S. Hier. Marcel. Ep. cii, Tom. 11. p. 336. « Ne nos 

superbiae ut facere solent, arguant, ita responsum habeant ; 

non adeo me hebetis fuisse cordis, et tarn crassae rusticita- 

tls, — ut aliquid de Dominicis verbis aut corrigendum putave- 

rimiis, aut non divinitus inspiratum, sed Latlnorum codiaim 

t'itiositatcyn quse ex diversitate librorum omnium cowprobatiir^ 

ad Graecam originem unde et ipsi translata non denegant, 

voluisse revocare.'* Conf. Damas, Epist. cxxiii. Tom, III. p. 

349. " Ad versus quara invidiam duplex "causa me consola- 

tur r quod et tu qui summiis sacerdos esy Jieri jubes : et verum 

non esse quod varied etiam maledicorum testimoniis com- 

probatur. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhi- 

benda, respondeant quibus : tot enim sunt exemplaria pene, 

quot codices. Sin autem Veritas est quasrenda de pluribus : cur 

cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae vel a mtiosis 

interpretibus male reddita, vel a presumptoribus imperitis emeri' 

data perversiiis, vel a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt ant, 

mutatay corrigimus. — De Novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod 

Graicum esse non dubium est. — Hoc certe cum in nostra sermone 

discordatf et in diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte 

quaerendum est." 

^^ Vid. Sim. Hist, des Vers. chap. v. p. 40. seq. 

*^ S. August. S. Hieron. Epist. lxxi. Tom. II. c. 161. c. ed. 

Bcned. *' Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimiis de opere tuo, 

quod Evangelium ex Grceco interprctatus es: quia pene in omnibus 

nulla offensio est, cum scripturara Grascam contulerimus. Unde, 

si quisquam vcterifaJsitati contensiosus faverit ; prolatis collatis- 

que codicibus vel docetur facillime, vel refellitur. 



( 16 ) 

To approach, somewhat nearer, to the source of 
tlie difficulty, we must look from the period which 
produced the Vulg^ate of St. Jerome, to that which 
brought it into general use. About the middle of 
the sixth century, this mystery begins to clear up. 
At that period, Cassiodorus, who observed the dis^ 
similarilij still existing between the original Greek 
and Latin translation, which Pope Damasus had 
in vain undertaken to remedy by publishing a more 
correct version, took a more effectual mode of curing 
the evil. Calling in the aid of the Greek original, and 
taking St. Jerome's version as its best interpreter, he 
undertook the coriection of the Old Italick by the Vul- 
gate and Greek '9. And the method in which he 
performed this task effectually removed the dissimi- 
larity between them, which had so obstinately con- 
tinued to his times. The monks who were employed 
in this work, were commanded to erase the words 
of the former translation, and to substitute those of 

*^ Simon, ib. p. 93. Cassiodore, dont le principal dessein 
€'toit de donner une Bibliotheque des Auteurs Latins ou traduits 
en Latin, y placa pour cette raison quelques ouvrages Grecs, 
et entre autres la Bible Grecque des septante divisee en lxxv 
livres. Ce qu'il fit comme il le temoigne lui m^me, pour suivre 
la juaxime de St. Angiistine, qui croyoit qtt''on devoit corriger 
les exemplaires Latins tant da Vieux que du Nouveau Testament, 
sur les exemplaires Grecs, * Sed quoniam,' dit Cassiodore, 
* Pater Augustinus in Lib. IL de Doctrina Christiana com- 
monet ita dicens : " Latini codices Veteris Navique Testamenti, 
si necesse fuerit, GrcEcorum auctoritate corrigendi sunt, unde et 
nobis post Hebrseuin fontem translatio cuncta pervenit," ideoq«e 
vobis et Grsecum Pandecten reliqui comprehensum in Ubris 
75." 



( 17 ) 

the latter ; takii\^ due pains to make the new writing 
resemble the old ^^ The manuscripts thus cor- 
rected, in which, on the basis of the old translation, 
the corrections of the new were ingrafted, he had 
incorporated with the Greek original in the same 
tolume. To the bibles which contained this text 
he gave the name of Pandects, causing some of 
them to be copied in the large, or uncial character ; 
and some of them, for the convenience of general 
readers, to be copied in a smaller ^\ 

Here therefore I conceive, the main difficulty 
before us finds an easy solution. To this cause is 
to be attributed the affinity discoverable between 
the Greek and Latin text, in which the patrons of 
the German method of classification seem to have 
discovered the marks of a high original, ascending 
to the apostolical days ; biit which really claim no 
higher authours than the illiterate monks of a bar- 
barous age. And here it is likewise conceived no 
improbable origin is traced for that peculiar class of 
manuscripts termed Codices Grseco-Latini '% which 

^° Cassiod. de Div. Lect. cap. xiv. xvi Precor enim vos qui 
emendare presumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas 
facere studeatis, utpotius ab antiquariis scriptcejuissejudicentur, 
Ce qu'il etoit difficile de pratiquer, lors qu'on changeoit plu- 
sieurs mots a la fois pour les rendre conformes dux exemplaires 
de St, Jerome, comme il est arrive souvent dans les manuscriii 
de Clermont et de St, Germain des Prez, et meme dans plusieurs 
autres qui ne sont pas si anciens. Simon, ib. chap. viii. p. 97. 

^* Simon, ibid, p, 94-, 95^ 

3* Id. lb. p. 92. II y avoit par exemple, en ce tems-la des 
exemplaires Latins du Nouveau Testament de la maniere qu'ila 
avoient cte retouches j^ar St, Jerome. Les reviseurs qui ctoient 

Q 

% 



( 18 ) 
are noit found of such utility in correcfing or in 
corrupting' the sacred text. Every circumstance " 

persuades qu'ils etoient plus exacts que ies anciens, les reform 
moient sur cette edition : ce qu'ils faisoient egalemeni dans le 
Grec et dans le Latin. Car c'etoit alors la coutuiwe de recourir 
a I'Original, &ur lequel on prenoit meme la liberte de corriger 
Je Latin. Cela a donrie apparemmetit occasion a ces "oieux Exeiri" 
plaires dii Noiiveau Testament^ oil I'on voit le Grec d*un cote, et 
le Latin de t' autre." 

^^ Simon. Hist, des Vers* ib. p. 96* Mais cette regie 
qui etoit bonne d'elle ttieme apporta dans la suite une grande 
confusion dans les exemplaires de la Bible qui ont ete copies 
par les Latins. Ceux qui firent le metier de critiques dan& 
les Moiiasteres, d'oil Pan a tire presque tout ce qui noits reste des 
anciens mayiuscrits, n*^ayant pas la capacifie que eat emploi 
demandoit, les ont plutot corrompus que corriges en plusieurs 
endroits, Cest a quoi il fant bien prendre garde dans les di- 
■^^erses lepons qu'on rapporte de ces anciens manuscrlts. Je ne 
dirai ici du Vieux TestanK3nt : mais ceux qui voudront examijier 
les deux anciens exemplaires de S. Pmd, dont I'un est dans la 
Bibliothequc da Jloi^ et I'autre dans celle de St. Germaine des 
Prez, les irouxerent tout defigurh par les differentes correctio7iSf 
fu^on a fakes, iant dans le Grec que dans le Latin. On y a 
suivi la regie que Cassiodore preterit a ses moines, spavoir qu'il 
faut reformer hardiment la vieille edition sur les exemplaires de- 
Saint Jerome* Ce s^avant homrae ne pretendoit pas qu'on les 
dut refondre, coninie Pon a fait. II vouloit seulement qu*ou- 
corrjgeat les fantes manifestes qui etoient dans I'orthographie,. 
ou dans les noms propres: ce qu'il appelle verba absurde posita. 
The latter part of ihh observation does not accord with that 
immedjatel}'^ preceding or with the state of tire marmscripts as 
they now appear on inspection, lliough orthographical errours 
were those against which Cassioxlorus foimd it principally ne- 
cessary to guard ; his express reference to the Greelc and to St, 
Jerome, which Vere supposed to coincide, arid his main object, 
which was to procure perfect copies, suffieiently evince that his 
corrections extended to rmrds as ivell as letters : vid. supr. n. **. 
The above remark may be extended, from the Clermont, and St^ 



( 19 ) 

connected with their history seems to identify them 
with that part of the Pandects of Cassiodorus, which 
contained the New Testament. Their age is nearly 
that of the sixth century^ the places from whence 
they have been taken, the French monasteries. And 
with these circumstances their general appearance 
comports. The text is nearly obliterated with cor- 
rections ; the margin defaced by notes ; the ortho- 
graphy abounding with barbarisms ; and the Greek 
original and Latin translation aiming at a literal 
affinity, yet frequently at variance, not only with 
each other, but with themselves ^^. Such, or I 
am grossly deceived, is the true pedigree of the 
Cambridge, the Laudian, the Clermont, and St. 
Germain manuscripts, &c. which occupy a principal 
rank in the new classification. The first of these 
manuscripts appears to have been brought out of 
Egypt, where it was seemingly composed for the 
use of some convent of Latin asceticks : this appears 
probable not only from some internal evidence in 
its margin, but from its ancient and barbarous or- 
thography ; the former of which seems to indicate, 
that it was not composed for domestick purposes ; 
the latter, that it was not written in a country where 

Germaine, to the Cambridge MS. Id. Nouv. Observ. sur le 
Texte et les Vers. chap. ii. p. 18. Je lui [M. Arnaudj ai deja 
indique en general que les Retractations de Bede sur les Actes 
des Apotres, un des manuscrits de Robert Etienne, et quelques 
autres, d'ou il pent connoitre que le manuscrit de Beze n'est pas 
le seul exemplaire du Nouveau Testament, qui ait ete retouch^ 
expres, et d'un si etrange maniere. 

3+ Vid, Mill. Prolegom. in Nov. Test. n. 1272, seq. ed. Kust* 



( 20 ) 

Greek or Lntin was the vernacular, at least the pri- 
initive, tongue. 

Submitting these observations to the consideration 
of my readers, I now leave them to estimate what 
authority they leave to the testimony of the old 
Italick version, quoted in favour of the German 
method of claseification. To me it appears a mat- 
ter capable of demonstration, that it can be entitled 
to none. The undertaking of Jerome and Cassio- 
dorus, had they been silent upon this subject, would 
prove a dissimilarity once existing- between the old 
Italick and the Vulgate and Greek of the Alexan- 
drine recension. That dissimilarity has now dis- 
appeared, and they are found to coincide ^K To 
what therefore, but the correction of those pious 
tuthers, is the affinity now to be attributed } 

But it will be objected, the affinity of the Old 
Italick with the Si/riack, which cannot be traced 
through the Greek, as not discoverable in it, still 

55 This k a pdiAt which received a demonstrative proof from 
the cekbruted Dr. Bentley. On collating the Alexandrine and 
other MSS. of the same recension with the oldest copies of the 
Vulgate, he was surprised at their extraordinary coincidence, 
not only in the peculiar readings, bat t1ie order of the words : 
sec his Letters p. 229. seq. Comp. not. ^^ supr. p. 17. and Garbel. 
ap. Blanchin. Evan'g. Quadrupl. Prbleg. pp. 9, 10. Of some of 
the principal MSS. of the old Italick Version, Sabati'er declares ; 
Bibl. Sacr. Tom. III. p. xxxiv. *' uterque [Cod. Corbeiens. et 
Sangerm.] antiquam sapit versionem, non seeus ac Colbertinus; 
■^-aliquando etiam ita Novce Vulgatce similis esty ut ovum ab ovo 
citius discerns. Ex^mpla esse possunt prioraMS'. Corbeiensis 
capita qua' sic cum Vulgata conveniunt lit vix ullam animadverta* 
discrepantiam," &c. 



( 21 ) 

stands in support of the original position ; and 
while it remainvs otherwise unaccounted for, tlie 
evidence of an affinity derived from the apostohcal 
age is sufficiently apparent to support the German 
classification. Yet even this difficulty is not too 
stubborn to be conquered. And, turning to the 
consideration of the next revision, which the sacred 
text underwent, it seems to supply us with an easy 
solution. 

It has been asserted, and we shall see upon good 
authority, that Charlemagne directed his attention 
not only to the revision of the text of the Vulgate, 
but to the correction of the Gospels after the Syriack 
and Greek ^^. This, it will appear in the sequel, 
was in his days no impossible task, from the venera- 
tion in which Jerusalem was held, and the pilgri- 
mages undertaken to the Holy Land. We have, 
however, internal evidence of the matter in dispute ^". 
For the Latin and Syriack translations are observed 
to have some literal coincidences^ particularly in the 

^^ Thegan tie Gest. Lud. Pii ap. Duch. p. 277» Quatuor 
Evangelia quse intitulantur nomine Matthaei, Marci, Lucse et 
Joannis in ultimo, ante obitus sui diem, cum Gra^cis et St/ris 
O'ptime correxerat, Vid. Sim. Hist, des Vers. chap. ix. p. 100. 
See Michael, ut supr. ch. yii. § q, p. 27. and Dr. Marsh*s notes, 
p. 550. 

37 Dr. Marsh's Michael, ch. VII. § v. p. 24. " The readings 
of the Syriack version coiyicide very frequently with the Latin, 
in cases where our printed editions of the Greek Testament, or 
the MSS. of particular countries deviate from both. — By the 
I^atin I understand at present — the common version as corrected 
by Jerome, ratified by papal authority, and known under the- 
^ameof///ie Vulgate f'* 



( 22 ) 

GpspelSj which are alone said to have been retouched^ 
while the Greek original is not found to partake of 
the affinity. Professour Alter, in a letter to Profes- 
sour Birch, describing the version of the Jerusalem 
Syriack, specifies five places in St. Matthew, in 
which it agrees literally with the old Italick, while 
it dissents from the Greek ^^ And Professour Mi- 
chaelis has observed of the Montfort manuscript, 
which has been confessedly corrected by the Latin, 
that in the short space of four chapters of St. Mark, 
it possesses three literal coincidences with the old 
Syriack, two of which agree with the old Italick, 
while they differ from every known manuscript ex- 
tant in Greek ^^. 

The inferences which follow from these (circum- 
stances, are sufficiently obvious. And the affinities 
thus tmced between the Oriental and Western text 
contained in the old Italick and Syriack versions 
are seemingly to be attributed, not to the original 
autographs of the apostles and evangelists, but to 
the corrected translations of Jerome, Cassiodorus, 
and Charlemagne '^°. Indeed the existence of affi- 



^lo' 



^3 In Matt. vii. 25. viii. 9. ix. 17, 28. xxvii. 40. Vid. Epist, 
Alter, ap. Birch. Prolegom. in Nov. Test. p. Ixxxv. 

3? Mar. iii. 20, 34. vi. 48. Vid. Michael. Intr. to N. Test, 
by Dr. Marsh. Vol. II. p. I. ch. viii. §.6. p. 286. 

*° The conclusiveness of these deductions will directly appear, 
on considering the age of the most antient MSS. now extant, 
which contain the Western text. With the exception of the 
Cambridge and Verceli MSS. none of them can claim an an- 
tiquity j9n"or to the age of Charlemagne, It is therefore at least 
possible, tliat any coincidence discoverable between the text of 



( 23 ) 
fiities between those versions, which the originals 
do not acknowledg-e, ought to be taken as definitive 
in estabhshing the fact. For surely it is of all sup- 
positions the most improbable, that the latter^ which 
descended immediately from the common source of 
the whole, should want tliat conformity to the 
original, which was discoverable in two branches, 
which flowed from it, in collateral channels, and by 
a devious course. 

And probably these considerations which seem to 
reduce the distance placed between the Montfort 
manuscript and those manuscripts which occupy 
the first rank in the new classification, will entitle 
the former to somewhat more serious attention than 
it has latterl}^ received. The general opinion en- 
tertained of that manuscript, is, that it was written 
in the interval between the years 1519 and 1522, 
for the purpose of furnishing Erasmus with an au- 
thority for inserting the text of the three heavenly 
witnesses in his third edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment- But this notion, which is rendered highly 
improbable by the appearance of the manuscript, 
is completely refuted by the literal affinities which 
have been already observed to exist between it and 
the Syriack. The knowledge of that oriental version 
in Europe was not earlier than 1552, when it was 
brought by Moses Mardin to Julius III, and even 
then there was but one person who could pretend 
to any knowleclge of the language, and who was 

those MSS. and the Syriack version and original Greek, may 
not be more anticnt than the era of that prince ; of course, 
assigned on most jiKonckisive grounds to the age of the apostles^ 



( 24 ) 
obliged to receive instruction in it from the foreignep 
who imported it from the East^ before he could assist 
him in committing it to print ^\ Yet admitting, that 
the knowledge of this version and language existed 
thirty years previously, which is contrary to fact, still, 
an attempt to give an appearance of antiquity to this 
manuscript, by interpolating it from the Syriack is 
a supposition rendered grossly improbable by the 
state of literature at the time. For no fabricatour 
could have ever calculated upon these evidences of 
its antiquity being called into view. Notwithstand- 
ing the curiosity and attention which have been lat- 
terly bestowed on these subjects, and which no 
person, in the days of Erasmus, could have foreseen ; 
they have been but recently observed. These affi- 
nities, which cannot be ascribed to accident, conse- 
quently claim for this manuscript, or the original 
from which it was taken, an antiquity which is very 
remote. But its affinities with the Syriack are not 
the only peculiarities, by which it is distinguished. 
It possesses various readings in which it differs from 
-every known Greek manuscript, amounting to a 
number, which excited the astonishment of Prof. 
Michaelis and Dr. Mills ^\ Some of them, we have 
already seen, are coincident with the Syriack and old 
Italian version ; but as it has other readings which 
they do not acknowledge, we cannot so easily account 
for these peculiarities, as by admitting its relation 
to some other source, which, as not immediately 

*' Simon Hist, des A^ers. ch. xv. Michael. Introd. ibid. ch. 
Vii. J. 2 p. 8. 
>* Michael, ibid. ch. viii. §, 6. p. 286. 



( 25 ) 
connected with tliem, is probably very remote. And 
if this source be traced by the analogy which it pre- 
serves to the old Italick, it must be clearly of the 
very highest kind. 

Though the testimony of the old Italick version 
cited in favour of the German classification must be 
given up, still it may be contended, that the con- 
currence of the Si/riack and the Vulgate with the 
Greek of the Alexandrine recension^ is adequate 
to support the entire weight of this system. To this 
I reply ; that witli respect to both translations^ they 
must stand and fall with the original text, and tiiat 
of a very late edition. The origin of the Vulgate is 
well known; and not long previous to the com- 
mencement of the fifth century. Nor can the Syriack 
claim a much higher original ; the oldest proofs of 
its antiquity are found in the quotations of St. 
Ephrem ^\ who flourished near the close of the 
fourth. Near the beginning of this century, an 
edition of the original Greek was published by 
Eusebius, of Cesarea, under the sanction of Constan- 
tine the Great. A brief examination of this point 
will probably enable us to account for the coinci- 
dence, between the original Greek and those trans- 
lations, on which the German mode of classification 
now rests its entire support. 

♦J Vid. Michael, ibid. ch. vii. J. 6. p. 3.2. I add Dr. Marsh's 
note 12. p. 554. " That the old Syriac Version is quoted by 
Ephrem, no one will deny. It is certain therefore tliat it 
existed in the fourth century, but as Ephrem is the oldest 
evidence, that can be produced of its antiquity, it must remain 
a matter of uncertainty, whether it was made one, two or t^ree 
penturies previous to that period.** 



( S5 ) 

The authority with which Eusebius was vested, 
to prepare this edition^ was conveyed in the follow* 
in^ terms, as nearly as the original can be literally 
expressed ^^. ''' It seemeth good unto us to submit 
to your consideration, that you would order to be 
written, on parchment prepared for the purpose, 
by able scribes, and accurately skilled in their artj 
fifty codices, both legible and portable, so as to be 
useful ; namely, of the sacred scriptures, whereof 
chiefly, you know, the preparation, and use to be 
necessary to the doctrine of the church/' 

If we now compare the authority thus committed 
to Eusebius, which seems to have vested him at 
least v/ith a discretionary power, of selecting chiefly 
those sacred scriptures which he knew to be useful 
and necessary to the doctrine of the church, with 
the state of the sacred X<tiii as it is now marked in 
the corrected edition lately put forth by M. Gries^ 
bach ; we shall perhaps discover how far it is pro^ 
bable he acted to the full extent of his powers, and 
removed those parts of scripture from the circulated 
edition, which Ae judged to be neither conducive to 
use nor doctrine, and which are now marked as 
probable interpolations in the Received Text. They 
amount principally to the foUowing ; the account of 

♦* Constant. Epist. ap. Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. IV. Cap, 

.XXXvi. p. 646. 1. 13. — ^^sTroy ya,^ xocn^oivvif to ^^Xuiffen t>7 trr^ 
■^vvicniy eVaj iv 'ar£VT>?xovra o'w/zaTja iv ^K^G/^aK lyaxruiry.evoig^ 
ivuvayvu^ai Ti f^ 'sr^oq rryv ^^^Jatv £yj!/.ETa«o/>cir<3f> v'^o rs^viTai? 
iLoXKiypoLipuv yCf oC'APiQux; tr,v ri^vr.v iTTifCifjieviJVf yfix(pyivect xiMvaSiaq' 
ruv Ssiwy ^rjXa^r? y^a.(pi^9, w* fj;,uXirat, Tviv r tTt iO-KiVViV >cj tm ^^ail T^ 
irjjj k«A>ja»aj Myio Lvay^o(,'i,»y thou yivuctcfn;. 



( 27 ) 
the woman taken in adultery, John vii. 53. — viii. 11. 
and three texts which assert in the strongest manner 
the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and 
Redemption, 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts xx. 

If two points can be estabhshed against Eusebius, 
that he wanted neither tlie pozver, nor the will^ to 
suppress these passages, particularly the latter, 
there will be fewer objections lying against the 
charge, with which 1 am adventurous encugh to 
accuse him ; in asserting that the probabihties are 
decidedly in favour of his having expunged, rather 
than the catholicks having inserted, those passages 
in the sacred text. 

There will be less reason to dispute his power 
over the copies of the original Greek, when we know 
that his high reputation for learning, aided by the 
powerful authority of the emperour'^^, tended to 
recommend his edition to the exclusion of every 
other ; and when it is remembered, that the 
number of the copies of scripture was in this reign 
above all others considerably reduced on account 
of the destruction made of them in the preceding ^^. 

♦5 Antipat. Bostrens. Serm. I. adv. Euseb. Apol. pro. Ori'g. 
in Concil. Nic. II, Act. v. '^yu }\ on lAv -croXt^iv^f o a.vr,^j >^ eUv 

x^ OfA.o?^oyia' ^a.a-iKi-A.ri ya,^ irvvtpyia. y^puf^iv'^y 0x^00^ ra, 'sreivra^ii 'mpo^ 
ixvrov avvoiyeiv v)ov»ecro. 

^^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VIII. cap. ii. p. 377. 1. 35. ry»1/]|- 

le^as" l^affJas- Kara. iJ.iaccs dr/oqas zsv^i zjaq^i^ofxivccs avroTf 
i7Fei^of/.£v o(p^a'k(xo7s. The effects of this destruction of the 
sacred books, under Dioclesian and Maximian extended even 



( 28 ) 
Let us add to these considerations, thesfe further 
circumstances ; that the pious emperour who had 
employed him to revise the text, had been at con- 
siderable pains and expence to multiply copies of 
the scripture ^^ ; and that the edition thus dispersed, 
as altered by Eusebius, was peculiarly accommo- 
dated to the opinions of the Arians ^^^ who from the 

to Britain. Vid. Usser. Britt. Eccless. Antiquitt, cap. vii. p. 90. 
*' Atque hjEC dira ilia fuit a Diocletiano et Maximiano adversus 
Christiani nominis professores mota persecutio : de qua, recen- 
tior Scotorum historicus Hector Boethus, [Scot. Hist. Lib. VI.] 

* Evagata est rabies ilia, non modo ab Oriente in Occidentein, 
sed etiam per alterum orbem Britanjiiam ;* &c. — eaque * fire 
deletam Juisse Christianitatem in tota insula,* Galfridus MonC" 
muthonsis asserit ; non alia et ipse authoritate quam Gildae ' 
nijvus, ex quo hujiis persecutionis historia ad verbum, pene ab 
illo est transcripta. In ea enim, ut apud Gildam habetur, 

* subversae per totum mundum Ecclesiae, et cunctce Sacra; Scrips 
turcB qu(£ iwceniri potuerunt in plateis eccustcB,*^ &c, 

*^ Id. Vit. Constant. Lib, III. pap. i. p. ^^66, 1. 15. Ol lAv rd 

** This is a point which maj^ be established from the declara- 
tion of the council of Philippopolis, after the schism which took 
place, in the council of Sardica, between the Eastern and 
Western churches; when the orientalists declared for the 
opinions of Arius. The strongest protest of that council was 
directed against the doctrine of one substance which is asserted 
in the foremeniioned verses, 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16., &c, 
which I conceive were suppressed in Eusebius's edition^ 
Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. xx. p. 104*. 1. 23. — ««» 

*ytvouivoi foi a»xTo^ixo»3 Iv Tvj <J>*Xi7rirtf tzreXE* tt}^ 0pax:jf, iaia^oi* 
ipottfvTE? ervvi^piov' xcci ^avipo;? XotTrof TO /xev o/xoaatov avaS'TO/xaTtcwiJi* 



( 29 ) 
reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius^^ held 
an unhmited sway over the church ; and there will 
arise something more than presumptive proof in 
favour of the opinion which I have advanced ; that 
at this period an alteration was made in the sacred 
text, of which it still retains a melancholy evidence, 
particularly in the translations made from the edi- 
tion of Eusebius. 

With respect to the influence which his edition 
had upon the sacred text at large, it is most strong- 
ly evinced in the early translations. If it can be 
shewn that it affected these, its more pow^erful ope- 
ration upon the original cannot be reasonably dis- 
puted. 

On reviewing the translations of the eastern text, 
and considering the Coptick, in the first place, 
which reads, in the disputed passages, against the 
Received Text, and with the Corrected, the fact is 
not to be denied. For it possesses the divisions '% 

49 For at least forty years, from tlie translation of Eusebius 
from the see of Nicomedia to Constantinople, A. D. 340, to the 
convening of the fourth Council of Byzantium, under Theodo- 
sius, A. D. 381. Socrat.Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. cap. vii. p. 268. 
1. 27. "Ovlui/i-hhol \ ^ciccvol iTr) rsaffetpxKotlx hn ru* tvxl^iuv to* 
%uv Kfsclyiaccvlii t-^v t« 0xs-i7^iui ©lo^o^ia OfAovotoiv (pivyovltq, t-TTsl^A^c* 

T?< o/*otf«ri» 'crlrsw: t«? £«xA>3^i«?. Conf. Theodorit. Lib. V. capp. 
vi.vii.p.200. 1. lO.seq. 

5°Wetsten. Prolegora. in Nov. Test. Sect. i. ^ 11. Tom. I. p. 
6. " Eosdem [ril^a? et KtpuXaict Eitsebianos^ habet et Vcrslo 
Coptica, uti in MSS. vidi, quod editor de industria supprcs- 
fiisse videtur, ne scilicet paulum * dubitaremus, versionem N. T. 



( 30 ) 

which Eiisehius applied to the scripture, in invent- 
ing his celebrated canons, with the aid of Amnio- 
nius's harmony, and accommodating', them to the 
Gospels. And this remark may be in some measure 
extended to the Syriack ^\ which, in possessing an 
affinity to the Vulgate, on which incontestably Eu- 
sebius's edition had some influence, betrays very 
•Jecisive evidence of having directly proceeded from 
the same original. But as more immediately to our 
purpose, it may be stated, that a copy of this ver- 
sion preserved in the Laurentian library, bearing 
date as far back as the year five hundred and eighty- 
six, has subjoined to it the canons of Eusebius, and 
the epistle to Carpianus ^% describing their use in 
finding the correspondent passages of scripture. 

With these versions, tliose of the Ethiopick, the 
Armenian, tlie Arabick, and Persian, must stand 



* in linguam ^'Egyptl primis a Christo seculis, sell, vel secundo, 

* vel tertii initio factam esse,' ut ipse in Prsefatione pag. v. as- 
seruit ; Eusebii enim tempora nos ad quartum seculum dedu- 
cerent." Conf. Simon Hist, des Vers. ch. xvi. p. 191. Les 
Ivlanuscrits Coptes ont conserve, comma il a cte deja remarque 
les distinctions dcs Exemplaires GrccSy sur lequels la Version 
Copte du N. T. a ote fait. — lis marquent deux sortes de Sec- 
tions, comme dans les MSS. GrecSy scavoir les grandes qu'ils 
nomment Ki(^d>>ot,iu, et les petites, qui sont indiquees aux 
marges." 

^* The Syriack version possesses divisions in the text at least 
similar to those of Eusebius. In some of the copies of the old 
version the Eusebian sections and epistle to Carpianus are 
found if we may believe Mr. Travis Let. to Gib. p. 190. 

'^ Vid. Gor. ap. Blanchin. Evangel. Quadrupl. Tom. II. P, II, 
p. dlxxxiii. 



( 31 ) 

or fall; In admitting its influence upon tlie former^ 
we must admit it upon the latter^ as made after 
tliem^ instead of the original ^ Indeed the Cop- 
tick and Syriack have long become dead languages, 
being superseded by the Arabick^ which is the 
learned language of the East, as being that of the 
Mohammedan scriptures. The Coptick and Syri- 
ack versions are consequently attended, in general, 
with an Arabick translation, added in a separate co- 
lumn ; out of which the priests, having first read 
the original which they rarely understand, then 
repeat the translation to the people ^^. 

Great as the influence which it thus appears, the 
edition of Eusebius possessed over the Eastern text, 
it was not greater than it possessed over the West- 
ern. If a doubt could be entertained that St. Je- 
rome, revising that text at Bethlehem, (in the heart 
of Palestine, where Eusebius revised the original), 
would not have neglected his improvements ; the 
matter would be placed beyond controversion by the 
epistle which he has prefixed to the work, and ad- 
dressed to Pope Damasus ^^ It places beyond all 
doubt, tiiat, in correcting tiie text, the edition of 
Eusebius was before him ; as it describes his canons 
which are consequently represented, as applied to 
the text by St. Jerome. We consequently find, 
that the manuscripts of the Vulgate, of which seve- 

'^ M. Du Pin deduces the Ethlopick from the Syriack, vid. 
Dissert. Prelim, p. 82 : Renaudot deduces it from the Coptick, 
vid. Wetsten. Proleg. p. 110. 

^■^ Sim. ut supr. 

** Vid. S. Hieron, Epist. Damas, Tom. IV. in init. 



( 33 ) 

ral of the highest antiquity are still preserved in 
England and Prance, have the text accurately di- 
vided by the Eusebian sections ^^. 

The influence of the Vulgate upon the Old Ita- 
lick, which formed another branch of the Western 
text, has been already noticed. In the age of St. 
Augustine, it was makins* a sensible encroachment 
upon the antecedent translation. Ruffinus first fol- 
lowed it, and Cassiodorus brought it into general 
usage. In some of the oldest copies of the Italick, 
notices appear, declaring that they had been col- 
lated and corrected by the Vulgate ^^ Bibles of 

5^ Cassiod. de Div. Lect. cap. xii. Meminisse autem debe- 
mus, HIeronymum omnem suam translationem in auctoritate di- 
vina, sicut ipse testatur, propter siraplicitatem fratrum colis et 
commatihiis ordinassey ut qui distinctiones secularium literarurn 
comprehendere niinime potuerunt, hoc remedio suffulti incul- 
pabiliter pronunciarent sacras literas. En efFet on voit toutei 
ces distinctions, dans les plus ajiciens majiiiscrits Latins qui nous 
ayons dela Bible de St. Jerome. Simon ib. chap. x. p. 122. — • 
Id. ib. p. 126. St. Jerome avoit mis dans son Edition Latine 
une autre sorte de division qu''il avoit prise des exemplaires GrecSi 
Cette celle qui regarde les dix Canons d'Eusehe, et qui a ete 
d'une grand utilitc pour oter la confusion qui etoit avant St. 
Jerome dans les exemplaires Latins. 

57 Simon ibid. p. 106. *' On lit de plus dans ce meme ma- 
nuscrit [de Saint Germain des Prez] ces autres paroles a la 
fin de I'Epitre aux Ebreux, ou finit le Nouveau Testament sa- 
lon Tancienne disposition des Bibles Latines; * Bibliotheca Hi* 
eronymi Presbyteri secundum Gra^cum ex emendatissimis li- 
bris conlatus.' Ce qui montre non seulement Pexactitude du 
Copiste, mais Popinion commune de ces tems 1^, qui etoit que 
St. Jerome avoit retouche tout le Nouveau Testament sur les ex- 
emplaires Grecs. On ne parloit plus alors de Vancienne Version 
appellee Italique. Les copistes ne decrivoient plus d*autre Bible 



( 33 ) 

this description^ written in the age of Hugue de S. 
Chair^ are still preserved, with marginal references 
to St. Jerome and to the Greek ^^ ; the readings of 
the latter were probably taken on the authority of 
the Vulgate, which possessed the reputation of 
maintaining a scrupulous adherence to the original. 
After this period the new translation gradually su- 
perseded the old ; and the former is now adopted 
by the Romish Church, as of paramount authority 
to the original ^^. 

If the influence of the edition of Eusebius ex- 
tended thus wide, embracing both extremes of the 
Roman Empire, as affecting the eastern and v. es- 
tern translations ; it is not to be disputed that its 
operation on the original Greek must have been 
more powerful, where it was aided by his imme- 
diate reputation, supported by the authority of Con- 
Stantine. I have already stated the reasons which 
have induced me to ascribe such influence to the 
first edition of the Scriptures pubhshed with the 
royal authority. But a circumstance which tended 
to extend this influence, besides the great reputa- 
tion of the person by whom it was revised, was the 

Latine que P Edition de St. Jerome. C'est pourquoi ils les mar- 
quoient ordinairement a la fin de leurs livres." 

^^ Simon, Nouv. Observ. sur le Text et les Vers. ch. i. p. 
130. 

^9 Simon Hist, des Vers. ch. x. p. 124. *<Les Latins ont 
eu une si grandeestime pour ce pere [St. Jerome] que depuis 
mille ans ils ne se sent servis que de sa version. Les copistes lei 
plus exactes ont suivi entierement pour la disposition des li- 
vres la methode qu'il prescrit dans ses Prefaces/' &c. Vid, 
supr. n. 5^ conf. Praef. Bibl. Clem. VIII. 



( 34 ) 

mode of dividing' the text, which was introduced 
with the sections that w^ere adapted to Eusebius's 
Canons. This division of the text, as we have seen, 
St. Jerome was aware, in adopting it in the Vul- 
gate, was of infinite service to those who had to 
struggle with great inconveniences in reading, from 
the want of a systematick mode of punctuation. But 
the advantage of it was even more sensibly felt in 
reciting ; for the practice of chanting the service, 
introduced into the Greek Church from the antient 
Synagogue, was greatly facilitated, from its por- 
tioning out the text in a kind of prosaick metre. It 
can be therefore little matter of surprize that we 
find those divisions introduced into the whole body 
of Greek manuscripts ^° ; and that the stated num- 
ber of f(x°^, or verses, into which they are subdi- 
vided, is generally subjoined at the end of each of 
the books of Scripture^'. The bare existence of 
those divisions, particularly those of the former 
kind, in the manuscripts of the original Greek, 
which, as we have already seen, extended to the 
Eastern and Western translations, contains a stand- 

^° Such is the declaration of one whose aorthority, on this 
subject, ranks, in the opinion of M. Griesbach, Symbb. Critt. 
Tom. I. p. xvii. above all others. Wetsten. Prolegom. Sect. i. 
f 11. Tom. I. p. 6. *' Omnes etiam xsetustissimi Codices habent 
y.e(pa.>.ona et Tfl^y? Eusebicmos, a prima manuy excepto Vaticano 
et Cantabrigiensi.*' These MSS. however can be scarcely 
termed exceptions, as will appear in the sequel. 

6' Rob. Stephan. Praef. in Nov. Test. ed. Lut. 1550. « Nee 
tamen omisimus Eusebii Caesariensis Canones — Sed ne nume- 
rif,m quidem r^p^^wy, quum is in nostris prope omnibus codicibui 
invmiretiiVy in calce cuj usque Evangelii et Epistolae, 



( 35 ) 

ing evidence of their partial descent from the 
edition set forth by Eusebius. They are found in 
the oldest of those which have descended to us; 
some of which contain declarations that they were 
adopted from older ^\ 

As it is thus apparent that Eusebius wanted not 
the power, so it may be shewn that he wanted not 
the will, to make those alterations in the sacred 
textj with which I have ventured to accuse him. 

In one or two instances I am greatly deceived^ or 
the charge may be brought absolutely home to him. 
St. Jerome informs us ^\ that the latter part of St. 
Mark's Gospel was wanting in most copies of the 
Evangelist extant in his times ; the beginning of 
the fifth century. As the passage is absolutely ne- 
cessary to bring the Evangelist's narrative to a close, 
and as it introduces an apparent contradiction be- 
tween the accounts which St. Matthew and St. 

6* In a beautiful illuminated copy of the Gospels, formerly 
in the Vatican, which was apparently written for the use of the 
Emperor, John II., who succeeded Alexius in the year 1118, 
a marginal note appears, which, while it declares that the ma- 
nuscript was a transcript from older copies preserved at Jerusa- 
lem, adds the number of the sections and subsections, after the 

usual manner. ^Evuyyi-Kiov xotla, MxrBuTot iypxlpyi KUi «»l£^A)2^»j U 
7UV Iv hfocro XvixoK; 'sraXuiuv uvliyfuipuv, ruv tv rZ ayiu odh ccTroKeiU" 
ivuv, h r»%oi? /3y9r^, xstpaXatoj? rptaxoaioi? -nrevJ^xolat eVla x. t. I. ia 

Cod. Urbino-Vatican. 2. ap. Birch Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. 
xxvii. 

*'^S. Hieron. Epist. cl. quaest. iii. Tom. III. p. 416. Aut enim 
non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in rarisfertur EvangC" 
liis omnibus Grcecice libris pene hoc capihdum in fine non haben- 
tibus ; praesertim cum diversa atque contraria evangelistis ce- 
teris narrare videatur. 

d2 



( 36 ) 
Mark give of nearly the same incident,, it is a mo-* 
ral certainty that it must have been expunged from 
the original text, and not a modern interpolation ; 
for the contradiction affords a reason as conclusive 
for the former, as against the latter, supposition. 
As it existed in some copies in St Jerome's day, it 
necessarily existed in more in the days of Euse- 
bius ; for we shall see that it evidently lost the au- 
thority to be derived from his powerful sanction. 
But though it contains many striking coincidences 
with the other Evangelists, Eusebius wholly omitted 
it in his Canons ^^ : there seems to be consequently 
no other reasonable inference, but that his edition 
agreed with them, and with the copies extant in the 
times of St. Jerome, in omitting this passage. 
Now those Canons, compared with the passage in 
question, convey all the certainty which can be de- 
rived from presumptive evidence that he omitted 
this passage, not on the testimony of antecedent 

"* It is not found in the original copies of the Canons pre- 
fixed to the manuscripts of the Greek, nor in the translation of 
them prefixed to the manuscripts of the Vulgate ; it is wanting 
in the marginal references of the Cambridge and Alexandrine 
MSS., and is omitted by R. Stephens in his Greek Testament, 
and by Victorius in his edition of St. Jerome. Several scholia 
occur in the MSS. of the original Greek, some of which assert 
that Eusebius did not refer in his Canons to this passage. I shall 
subjoin one or two which are quoted by P. Simon, and Prof, 
Birch. Schol. MS. Reg. n. 2868. ap. Sim. Hist. Crit. du 
Texte, ch. xi. p. 121. "E* rtcrt rav a.vUyfa,<puv tuq u^i 'crXr.ptilat o 
sCccyytT^irk* Schol. MS. Venet. ap. Birch. Proleg. p. xxi. 'Ej. 
Ttcrt yAv u^iypcicpuv 'iue; uh Cir^wgtfJai 'EvccyyiMfh'^.f iw; if xj 'l.vai^Ki^ 
na/x^»^8 Izc^micnvt 



( 37 ) 
copies, but as unsuitable to his harmonical tables : 
for while theij point out those passages in which 
each of the Evangelists relates something peculiar, 
as well as those in which they relate something in 
common with others, it contains, at first sight, an 
apparent contradiction, which would be only likely 
to strike a person employed in the task of compo- 
sing such tables as those of Eusebius. The infe- 
rence seems to be as strong as the establishment of 
the point requires, that he first omitted this pas- 
sao^e of St. Mai^ in the sabred text, as he has omit- 

o 

ted it in his Canons. 

Nor is the case materially different with respect 
to John viii. 1 — 11., which contains the account of 
the woman taken in aduUery. That this narrative 
constituted a part of the original text of St. Jolni, 
there can be little reason to doubt. The subject of 
the story forms as convincing a proof, in support 
of this supposition, as it does in subversion of the 
contrary notion, that it is an interpolation. There 
could be no possible inducement for fabricating such 
a passage ; but one obvious reason for removing it 
from the canon. It has besides internal evidence 
of authenticity in the testimony of the Vulgate, 
in which it is uniformly found ; and external, in 
the express acknowledgement of St. Chrysostome, 
St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, that 
it is genuine^^ ; St. Augustine having specified the 

^^ Vid. Croii Observv. in Nov. Test. cap. xvH.pp. 130, 131. 
I shall subjoin the testimony of St. Jerome, as in point; S. 
^ierpn. ady. Pelag. Lib. II. cap. vi. Tom. II. p. 286. «'In 



C 38 ) 

reasons of its having been withdraAvn from the text 
of the Evangelist ^^. Eusebius has however omit- 
ted all reference to it in his canons ; for it is nei- 
ther discoverable in the copies of the Greeks nor in 
those of the Vulgate. And in his '' Ecclesiastical 
History "^'^ he has obhquely branded it with some 
other marks of disapprobation; apparently con- 
founding it with a different story. From these cir- 
cumstanceSj I conceive^ we may safely infer^ that 
Eusebius's copies agreed with his canons in omit- 
ting this passage : from which it was withdrawn by 
him, in strict conformity to the powers with w^hich 
he was vested by Constantine. 

As it is probable that he omitted those pas- 
sages, it is not less probable that he omitted at least 
one of those verses, 1 John v. 7, the authenticity 
of which has been so long a subject of controversy. 
Indeed, the whole three inculcate a doctrine, which 
is somewhat at variance with what we know, on the 
most indisputable testimony, to have been his pe- 
culiar opinions. The doctrine of Christ being of 
one substance with the Father is asserted in all of 

Evangllo secundum Joannem, in multis et Greeds et Laiinis 
codicibus hivenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud 
Dorainum." 

66 S. August, de Adultt. Conjugg. Lib. II. cap. vii. Tom. VI, 
c. 299. " nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, 
credo, metuentes, peccati impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud 
quod de adulter ce indulgentia Dominus fecit, aiiferrent de codi- 
cibus suis.'* 

^ Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. xxxix. p. 138. I. 5, 



( 39 ) 

tliem ; though most particularly in St. John's Epis 
de. But on the subject of this doctrine^ it is no- 
torious that Eusebius shamefully prevaricated in 
the celebrated Council of Nice. He first positively 
excepted against it^ and then subscribed to it^^; 
and at length addressed a letter to his Church at 
Caesarea^ in which he explained away his former 
compliance, and retracted what he had asserted ^^. 
On a person of such versatilit}^ of principle no de- 
pendence ought to be placed ; not that I am in- 
clined to believe what has been often laid to his 
charge ^^^ that he Wjas at heart an Arian. The 



^ Socrat. Hist. Ecel. Lib. I. cap. vili. p. 22. I. 34. ToIb ^l 
h TTj a-vvo^co, 'Evai^ios o rriv Ra/x^/Xa zs^oaoJW[xUv '^%^^, 

liti'i'nna.s, >c^ ^iaaxs'^ci^evoq si os7 z^jpoa^i^ua^ca tov ofov t^? -zs-ir^^y?, 

odorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. L cap. yii. p. 30. 1. 22, K«t rilTo eylr- 

au)ilg^i%ojv rr^ Apsiocvri oupi'iH vrt^ov ^\ v7ioy^<i^oi.s rip Iv Nixa/a 
cvvo^o, Conf. Theodorit. ib. p. 28. 1. 2 — 7,. Socrat. ib, p., 23. 
1.3. ' 

^9 Euseb. Epist. ap. Socrat. ib. p. 24. 1. 29, Kat ^^ ratJIjj? tJJ? 



y^a^jjs l"jtciyo'^iv^t\ari<if o-TTuq E^p'/jlat uvioTq to Ik t?? ua-iaq t5 oralco 



o?> 



x^ TO ToJ ZJoclpi o//,OH!jjov, «>t uvs^hoifoy ctvlo7(; xctluXijx'TravoiJLSv. — x^ 
$ri >^ TO l)j T^? tfcria; U(JLo7\6y'^o crpc? uvTuy^ ^riT^eJlmov ilvon rS \y. [ji.h tS 
^otl^cx; iivxif a pAv w$ fA£f05 VTra^x^^ "^^ crolpoy ? TaDra ^e xj r/^rv £^- 
«x« xaAw5 £%«v (ryyjtalatli'&EcrSflU Tvj ^*«»o»a T?? ipcrt^S^ ^i^ucrxaXlaqf 
p7rocyQfi£V8cr7)(; ly. tS -srolgoj £ii»a> Toy i*ov, e jtASi* jiai^o; t^? tio-ixq uvlov 
rvy^oiveiv, ^iOTre^ t^ ^tavoia )^ a^7oi awli^ifjit^ac. ti^l rhv ^utviv T« 

o/xo«(Ti« t7a§!%i7«pL£voi X. T. E. Conf. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II, 
cap. xviii. p. 6S. 1. 20—30. 

7** This accusation which Dr. Cave, Hist. Litter. Tom. L p. 
J 77, has endeavoured to set aside, is founded on the above 



( 40 ) 

truth is^ as indeed he has himself placed beyond a 
doubt, — he erred from a hatred to the peculiar no- 
tions of Sabellius ^*^ who, in maintaining that Christ 
was the First Person incarnate,, had confounded 
the Persons ^% as it was conceived he divided the 
substance. Into this extreme he must have clearly 
seen that the Catholicks were inclined to falP^ in 

cited expssition given by Eusebius, of the doctrine of one sub- 
stance ; which is precisely such an explanation as an Arian 
would propose and subscribe to without hesitation i vid. Epi? 
phan. Haer. Ixix. p. 732. d. In this light the epistle of Euse- 
bius was regarded by the best judges of antiquity. Phot, ad 
Constant. Patr. Epist. cxliv. p. 201. ed. Lond. 1651. 'Evae/Jto? 
o t5 IlajtA^pi^y, s'trs ^oi;Ao?, sire avvyi^ioq or^ /aev Ap«ayicr//,w laAw, 
^oua-i [/Av avrov roc |3t|3Aia* x^ uvToq ^l /Asla/zeXAo/xsvo? ^JjSey, k^ ukuv, 

la.u.i'knlov, 'Ov yao laJlov tKT^vai T>i? CtrpoTEfa?, ot uv toq^i aTroAo- 
yiTp-^uif a'vvi<rvia'\,y' «^£ t^ a,y\a, iCj otx»jW.£i/iK'^ av^^ovno'av avvoou' a.'K'Koc 
T»? Toy Qu.oiia\ii -nrpscr^sJIas avrov cvvs^.Bii'v ru (p^ovii^cili, t^ o-yyoialtS^- 
vsci Tfl yviyfAvj, repctlsvflcti* x^ t5to a(X.<^cus uXXec, rs luXBiovac zsapiq* 
tuaiy tL ri rois Kaua^suaiv ocvrco 'ypa,(^uaec li:i<iO'>.n, 

'* Sozpm. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. xviii. p. 68. 1. 31. Ku) 
'£t>ra^»o? /*«" i'TTjilietlo rov 'Eva-£$iov, eU '^oc h NtJiaia oo^ocvlac, -Trsp) tcv 
^oy^aioS KCtiVoloiJLOvyloc' o ^\, rotvrct, yiXv iitociViTv (P'/iaU' Evra^iof ^a 

*rviv Sa/JsAAia o>«^t^e<v ^o^ocv, Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap, 
xxiii. p.58.1. 2—7. 

7^ Damas. Epist. ap. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xi. 
p. 209. 1. 17. — rhq TM Za/oeAAia axoAa^oDvJa? 'm\a,rp, rov etvlqv 
>,iyo?ia,% xai Wxri^ot. eT»a» xa< 'Y»ov. Conf. Epiphan. Haer. LXII. 
Tom.L p. 513, Haer. Ixxii. p. 834. b. 

73 Sozom. ibid. p. 68. 1. 20. 'e» ^e tw tote, Ts-aAtv <cr§o? Iavts; 
\soLG\a.tp^ ol E'ff'KJKOTroiy axpl3oAo78]X£yok wsql to o[xoh(71ov ovofxat, ot 
fJLivyuf, TS? t2to 'Cr§ocr^E;)(^o^£y»?, ^Aacrfprj/AErv a/'oi'lo, uq virup^euq ittloq 
rov viov ^o|a^ovT«?; «a« Ta, Moy^a^oy J^ Sa/SsXX/a (p^owvJxs. — Ka7- 
arpi^ovlo 5s [xxXi^x 'mtfi rco roiavriXf, 'Kvai^ns TS o Ila/xCpiXS;} 
xa* 'Etra'^tos 5 'Avlto;^£ys, Vid. supr. nn. '^^ et ''\ 



( ^l ) 

combating the opposite errour in Arlus ; and on this 
very point he consequently maintained a contro- 
versy with Marcellus of Ancyra ^^^ who was how- 
ever acquitted of intentional errour^ by St. Athan- 
asius^^and the Council of Sardica^^ Whoever 
will now cast but a glance over the disputed texts, 
as they stand in our authorised version^ will di- 
rectly perceive that they afford a handle by which 
any person might lay hold who was inclined to lapse 
into the errours of Sabellius. Will it be therefore 
thought too much to lay to the charge of Eusebius 
to assert; That in preparing an edition of the 
Scriptures for general circulation, he provided 
against the chance of that danger which he feared, 
by cancelling one of those passages^ 1 Joh. v. 7; 
and altering the remainder^ 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts 
XX. 28? 

Let the most prejudiced of the advocates of the 
German method of classing the Greek manuscripts, 
according to the coincidences of their respective 
texts^ now take a retrospective view of their de- 
speutj as it has been traced from the edition of Eu- 
f-ebius. Let him compare the alterations which 
bave beep recenjtly made on their authority in the 

^* Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xx. p. 105. 1. 16. 'ovx 

tcyvo-^ioy [Asvlot on to Ma^xsKXa ^i^hiov o Fla/xtpiAtf *Evai[3tot; ufiirxEVm 
a<7iv Iv oMn TfKT-l /3i^Ato»5 -ergo? uvlov ^ia\£y6iMvo<;y a. m^oq MapxjXXo* 

yiavXoi; TocfAoaccltix;, T« Ma^yjT^he tlaccyovloi;, 

'^ S. Epiphan. Hser. lxxii. p. 837. b, 
7^ Socrat, Lib. II. cap. xx. p. 105. 1. 9. 



( 43 ) 

text of Scripture, with his peculiar opinions. Let 
him then answer how far their collective authority 
ought to decide against the truth of any doctrine^ 
or the authenticity of any verse which is at variance 
with the peculiar opinions of him by whom it was 
revised and published. 

In this impeachment of the original reviser of 
that edition of the Scriptures, from which there is 
more than a presumption, that all manuscripts of 
character have, in some measure, descended, its last 
feeble support seems to be withdrawn from the 
German system of classification. If any force be 
allowed to what has been hitherto advanced, the 
affinities on which it is founded are to be traced to a 
very different cause than a coincidence with the 
original text of Scripture, as published by the in- 
spired writers. Nor will it be thought that I pre- 
sume too far in explicitly denying, — That it ac- 
quires any support from the authority of Origen : 
That it receives any from the original testimony of 
the eastern and western versions : That it derives 
any from the best and most ancient manuscripts, 
or is countenanced in its important xleviations from 
the Received Text, by any which have not beeu 
altered from the times of Eusebius. 

Having thus removed the buttresses, and drawn 
out the braces which uphold this vast and uncement- 
ed pile, we need no further earnest of its falling to 
the srround, than the hollo wness of its foundation. 
The same materials, when reduced to a "heap, may 
be employed in raising a new structure. Hitherto 
we have brought the integrity of the Received Text 



( 43 ) 

barely within the verge of probabiHty. The only 
positive argument on which it is impeached has been 
indeed disposed of; and a negative consequently 
estabhshed^ by which it is covered. To entitle it 
to stand as authority^ positive evidence^ however, 
must be cited in its favour. With this object it shall 
be my endeavour to suggest a new principle of clas- 
sification^ and to determine what rank the Received 
Text may be assigned^ according to the proposed 
system. But more particularly it shall be my object 
to vindicate those important passages of the Received 
Text which have been rejected from the Scripture 
Canon^ on the principles of the German method of 
classification. 



SECTION II. 



.IjY an analysis of the texts of different manu- 
scripts^ we may be enabled to distribute them into 
different classes according to the coincidences of 
their peculiar readings. But we are thus afforded 
no means of determining which of those various 
readings existed in the sacred text, as dictated by 
the inspired writers. The difficulty which origi- 
nates from hence naturally suggested the expediency 
of an appeal to the writings of the early divines^ 
and to the versions of the primitive ages, in order 
to ascertain upon their authority, the probable state 
of the text at an early period. For this purpose a 
choice has been made of Origen, and an affinity 
traced between his quotations and the readings of a 
peculiar class of manuscripts ; which readings as 
confirmed by the concurrence of the eastern and 
western versions, were supposed to possess suffi- 
cient evidence, in this united testimony, of their 
having formed a part of the original text of Scrip- 
ture, 

The objections to this method of investigating the 
genuine text of Scripture, have been stated at large 
in the last section. It was then my object to trace 



( 45 ) 

the coincidences on which this mode of classifica- 
tion is founded to a ' comparatively recent source ; 
and to refer them to the first edition of the sacred 
text revised by Eusebius^ and published under the 
auspices of the Emperour Constantine. 

The peculiar objections lying against an appeal 
to the testimony of Origen were then generally spe- 
cified. Nor can an appeal be admitted to that of 
any of the Christian fathers^ unless on particular 
occasions^ where they deliver an explicit testimony, 
and expressly refer to the text of Scripture. Their 
collective testimony^ though highly calculated to 
establish the doctrinal integrity of the sacred text, 
is wholly inadequate to determine its literal purity. 
This is an assumption, from which no one will find 
it secure to dissent, who is acquainted with their 
general mode of quotation '. But if any person is 
still sceptical on this point, let him review the state 
of the text as preserved in their quotations, as it 
has been extracted from their works by Dr. Mills, 
and is inserted in his elaborate Prolegomena \ And 
if he yet fails of conviction, let him examine the 
peculiar readings of Origen and Chrysostome, who 
of all the ancients are most entitled to attention, as 
their testimony has been collected by M. Matthsei, 
in the notes of his Greek Testament ^ The fact 

' Vid.Croii Observ. in Nov. Test. cap. xvili. — xxviii. p. 134, 
seq. Blanchin. Vind. Can. Script. Tom. I. p. xxvii. Sabat. Prjcf. 
Bibl. Ital. Tom. I. p. xxviii. § 64-, &c. 

* Vid. Mill. Proleg. Nov. Test. n. 368. seq. ed. Kust. 

^ Mattha-i Nov. Test. Tom. I. p. 43, ed. Rig. In his locis 
G^go prceferatur aiictorUas Codicum Gnvcorim Novi Testament! 



( 46 ) 
is, they were so constantly exercised in the Scrip- 
tures^ which they had nearly committed to memory, 
that they quote^ not by reference^ but from recollec- 
tiouc However scrupulously^ of course^ they adhere 
to the sense of the text^ they frequently desert its 
letter. As they constantly quote by accommoda- 
tion^ and in explanation ; as they frequently com- 
plete their expositions^ by connecting different parts 

lectionihus Sanctoriun Patrum. Eadem est ratio variantium lec- 
tionum, qua; in 07'igine, Chrysostomo, et aliis reperiuntur. Nee 
enim isti Patres ita diligentes erant in laudandis et explicandis 
litteris sacris, ut nunc sunt critici, ac facilius etiam quam nos, 
cum Grseci essent, vocabida similia inter se jpermutabant, Haud 
raro etiam Graecitatem secuti, neghxerunt verba contextus sacri. 
Conf. not. in Matt. xvi. 13. p. 328, &c. Garbellius delivers 
himself in similar terms respecting the Latin Fathers and the 
eld Italick version, speaking of the Codex Brixianus ; Garb, 
ap. Blanchin. Proleg. in Evang. Quadrupl. P. I. p. 37. " Ego 
sane cum Argentei Codicis nostri coUationem cum Tertulliano, 
ac Cypriano instituissem ; quod inter Latinos scriptores ad ea 
Ecclesiae tempera proprius accederent, quibus puriora veterum 
interpretum exemplaria esse debuerant, locis omnibus, quos illi 
€x Evangeliis eduxerant, mature perpensis, fundum mihi ali- 
quem parasse putabam, unde lectiones dicti Codicis iilorum 
authoritate firmare possem. Ast ubi aliquando dies diei illuxit, 
falsum me, et fundum nullum certum labore illo mihimet com- 
parasse tandem cognovi. Ita easdem pericopas (uti observatura 
est) haud iisdem verbis, et nunc phiribus, modo paucioribus effe- 
runt, — Sed jiihil certiusy quam sacrorum librorum Novi prcBser- 
tim Fcederls locos plerumque e memorice penu, aliquando etiam 
tumultuariOf ut resipsa, aut tempus Jerrent Ecclesice Patres ad* 
tulisse. Nisi si forte ad assertum aliquod probandum praecisa 
sacri textus authoritate opus foret. Tunc enim exacte, ac per 
partes efferebant; quod* in laudatis aliquibus Tertulliani locis- 
observabamus." 



( 47 ) 
of Scripture, which do not succeed in the order of 
the context ; they necessarily deviate from its exact 
phraseology ^ These and other justifiable liberties 
which they have taken with the sacred text, as hav- 
ing' been occupied in explaining its sense, not in 
preserving its readings, consequently render their 
testimony, unless in very peculiar passages, of lit- 
tle further use, than, as I have already stated, to 
establish its doctrinal integrity. 

Deprived of the testimony of the primitive di- 
vines, our last appeal lies to the early Translations. 
But few of these are of sufficient authority to en- 
title them to any attention in deciding the matter at 
issue. With the exception of the old Italick ver- 
sion, they are destitute of the external evidence, 
which arises from the testimony of those early di- 
vines, who might have appealed to them in their 
theological writings. Nor are the probabilities of 
the case much in favour of their antiquity. The 
Macedonian conquests had rendered the original 
language of the New Testament so general through- 
out the east ', that the absolute necessity of a Sy- 

** See Croius and Matthaei, ut supr. 

5 It is not my intention here to espouse the opinion of Is. 
Vossius that Greek and Latin were the only languages spoken in 
Palestine in the Apostolical age. The Jews, at that period, 
as it is observable at present, adopted the language of their 
conquerors, but taught their children their vernacular tongue. 
This is evident from the following authorities : 2 Maccab. vii. 
21, 24, 25, 27. S. Hieron. Prtef, in Com. ad Gal. Tom. VL p. 
134-. c. Unum est quod inferimus—- Galatas, excepto Sermone 
Grceco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam linguam eandeiA 
pene habere, quam Treviros, &c. Hence, P. Simon, reason- 



( 48 ) 
riack and Coptick version was not immediately ex- 
perienced in the countries where those languages 
were spoken. And if we except those versions, 
there are none which can support any pretensions 
to a remote antiquity. The Ethiopick possesses the 
fairest claims ; but if we must admit it to have been 
more than corrected from the Greek ^ it must have 
been made at a comparatively recent period, as ap- 
pears from the time at which Christianity was esta- 
blished in Ethiopian With respect to the Syriack 



ing on the foregoing passage from the Maccabees, hi answer to 
Vosrius, declares; Hist. Crit. du Nouv. Test. chap. vi. p. 60. — • 
** Ce qui prouve manifestement que le Grec etolt la langue vul' 
gaire du paz/s, et que les Juifs outre le Grec avoielit conservef 
la langue Calda'ique qu'ils avoient rapportee de Babylone, et 
qu'ils appelloient la langue de la nation." 

By parity of reasoning we might conclude the same to have 
been the case in Egypt, which, not less than Syria, was under 
the domuiion of the Greeks. We consequently find, that the 
principal authours of this country wrote in Greek as the learned 
language ; and that inscriptions and coins of this country are 
written in the same language. The Coptick abounds in Greek 
terms, as I have particularly occasion to remark of the Sahi- 
click, one of its oldest and least corrupted dialects; which is a 
sufficient proof of the prevalence of Greek in the Thebais where 
that dialect was spoken. 

6 Vid^' Mill. Proleg. in Nov. Test. n. 1191. Conf. n. ". supr. 
p. 31 . ' 

7 This event cannot be antedated to the reign of Constantine, 
as appears from the impression which was made by the preach- 
ing of the Gospel upon the neighbouring countries, w^hich, 
tiiough visited by the apostles, did not fully embrace the faith 
until the times of the first Christian Emperour, when they wiere 
Tisited by ^Edesius and Frumentius, Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 



( 49 ) 
and Coptick^ which have those strong presump- 
tions against their antiquity^ that have been ah'eady 
suggested ; the antiquity of the latter is confessedly 
worse than suspicious^ as it is accommodated with 
the sections and canons of Eusebius ^ The pre- 
tensions of the Syriack are scarcely less equivocal. 
As it is composed in different styles ^^ and was thus 
possibly made at different periods^ the probabilities 
are, that the more antient part of the version was 
retouched, when the translation was completed. 
The bare probability of this circumstance, corrobo- 
rated by the want of positive evidence in favour of 
the antiquity of this version, destroys its authority 
as a testimony to which we may appeal in determi- 
ning the genuine text of Scripture. 

The little satisfaction which is to be derived on 
this subject from the Syriack and Coptick versions, 
has entitled the Sahidick to a proportionable degree 
of respect. In support of the remote antiquity of 

I, cap. xix. p. 49. 1. 31. *'AvBiq Zv fji,vy>fAonvriov kx) maq Itt* ru» 
Kon^uv tS 0x(7i}\icoq X^tfixvio-^oq I'^rKctTvvsTo' ryiVntoiVTX yot^ 'iv^aJv TS 
Tuv Iv^QTs^ii^Ka) 'l^yj^cJv rec e^J-rj, "Sr^o? to ^pirtcuv'i^itv i>.a,[/,^c6ti£ t>j» ap- 
^9}t' Tii'os ^e ivsKtv Tri 'crpoS^xj} ruv iv^ore^u l)(^^^<yu[/.riVf ha ^fcc^sav ifu, 
XviKU, ol A<ff6ro>.oi K\ri^u T»!v et? Ta hS*»} -nropsiav E^otSvlo, Quixoiq fx,\v ru» 
Tlao^uv uTTOToT^riv viri^iy(tTo* MarSarog ^e tjj» Awto9r»a** Bap.&o^o- 
fji,a7oq ^e tx^ijpSro rviv <7vvvi[jt.i/,ev/)v rotvTVi Ivoteiv' TdV fjLivTot IvaoTsfv hS'ixv 
^ ifffoffQiKii Bag/3apwK i^vn 'CsoT^Koif ^ja^o^ot? y^^u^ivx yX^yo-o-at?, ici ttw 
<Brfo rut YLuvrxytUs ^povuv b tk Xp>rtai't^|M'» Aoyo? tfuTi^e, rU oz n 
ahix t5 xoii ayra? ;^p»r»«>»o"a» vvy e^^o^ut xccTcc^^e^tJv* Conf. p. 50. 
1. 11. seq. 

8 Vid. supr. p. 29, n. 5°. 

9 Simon, Hist, des Vers, chap.xv. p. lS7o 



( 50 ) 

ill Is Version, which is written in that peciihar dialect 
of the Coptick which is spoken in Upper Egypt, a 
work has been cited, in which it is principally pre- 
served, and which, as supposed to be written by 
the heretick Valentinus, who flourished in the se- 
cond centurij, necessarily supports its pretensions 
to at least an equal antiquity '°. 

To the species of evidence on which this work is 
thus recommended to us as antient, I have much to 
object ". The foundation on which the conclusion 

*° Version. Saliid. Fragmentt. a Woid. et Ford. Oxon. 1799, 
Prolegg. pp. 136, 139. " Sed uiterius progredior, et vetustatem 
Versionis Saliidicas factis probabo, Valentinum j^gyptium 
anno circiter vegesimo secundo vel vigesimo tertio seculi se- 
cundi floruisse, et librum " Sopliiae" scripsisse novimus. — Ex 
his colligo " SojyJiiam^* esse librum Gnosticorum antiquissimum 
qui seculo secundo jatn extiterit, Et cum Tertullianus " So- 
phiam*^* Valentino adscribat, nullam video rationem cur non 
potius Valentino, quam alii Gnosticorum attribuam quorum 

voces familiarissimas 7r^>j^a;ja.a, oduv, iJi.vrr,ftoVy yvua-ic, ^apBviT^a), 

icx.Xooc(3au^, Sec. saepissime exhibet. Cum vero plures Psalmi 
Davidici, et quaedam Veteris Testamenti ac plura iV ovi Testa" 
menti loca m hoc MS^'^. Codice recitentur, quae cum reliquiis 
Versionis Bibliorum ^gyptiacac, exceptis quibusdam varieta- 
tibusconveniunt; recte inde milii videor conjicere : Literpreta* 
tionem Bibliorum Sahidicam secido secundo jam extitisse, 

" I take no account of the argument of M. la Croze and Dr. 
Wilkins, Prolegom. in Vers. Copt. p. v. drawn from the case of 
the ascetick Antonius, who, though said to have been not versed 
in Greek literature, is yet admitted to have read the scriptures, 
and to have heard them read in the church ; from whence it i* 
concluded, he must have heard and read them in a Coptick 
translation. Let us however suppose him able to understand 
and to read Greek, though not able to speak or write it, and we 
*hall see that the authority which supports this argument con- 
cludes nothing. 



( 51 ) 
in favour of its antiquity, is built, is in the first 
place, weakened if not destroyed, by the doubt- 
fulness of the fact, that any work of the kind has 
been really ascribed by TertuUian to Valentinus '\ 
And this objection is considerably strengthened by 
the further consideration, that many works, under 
similar titles have been ascribed to his disciples '^ 
The circumstance of this work being written ia 
Sahidick, which was the vulgar language of the 
Thebais, seems to conclude not a little against the 
origin which it is ascribed, in being referred to 
Valentinus. This heretick, who was a person of 
no ordinary qualifications '^ could not be ignorant 

" iMassuet. Dissert. Praev. in S. Iren. Art. I. Sect. iv. § 9. p. 
xvi. ed Bened. " Sunt qui putant scriptum ab eo [Valentino] 
librum sub titulo " Sophia," nixi his Tertulhani verbis adv. 
Valent. cap. 11. *Docet ipsa Sophia non quidem Valentini sed 
Salomonis.' Sed haec perperam explicant. Alludit enim Ter- 
tuUianus, no7i adaUquem Valentini librum^ sed ad Sophiam no- 
vissimum eorum quos excogitavit iEonum ; ut legenti patebit." 
Conf. § 12. 15. 48. 

" Id. ibid. § 9. " Discipulos quidem Valentini * exsistentes 
extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura 
habere gloriari, quam sint ipsa Evangelia^ narrat Irenaeus Lib. 
III. cap. xi. n. 8. ' In tantum siquidem processerant audaciae, 
ut Novum Evangelium, quod *' Veritatis*' nuncupabant, con- 
finxissent.* At ipsi Valentino nihil simile usquam adscribitf" 
&c. 

** Id. ibid. p. xiii. *' Alexandriam profectus Valentinus, ibi 
Grcecorum artibus non mediocriter instiiutus est. doctissimum 
enimfuisse scribit Hieronymus in Ose. cap. x. et Dialog, contr. 
Marcionitas, qui Origeni vulgo adscribitur, ovk £vTg^r!? uy^, 
vir minime vtdgaris dicitur. Quin saltern ingenio peracri, et 
inlectioneveterum Philosopkorum non parum versatus esset non 



( 5;? ) 

of Greek, wliieliwas in his age the learned language 
of Egypt, as he adopted most of his pecuhar tenets 
fyom the mythology of Hesiod and the philosophy 
of Plato *^ It is in the last degree improbable, 
that Tertiillian could have understood him, had he 
\yritten in any other language ; and wholly incon- 
ceivable, that he should omit all mention of so ex- 
traordinary a circumstance as his having read Valen- 
ti'nus ill! his vernacular tongue. Admitting all that 
can be claimed for this work, that it was really com- 
posed by the early heretiek to whom it is ascribed, 
it is thus only probable that it is but a translation 
from the Greek, and of course, for any thing we caa 
decide, one of a very recent period. In this form it 
is as probable,, as the contrary, that it incorporates 
in its text a version of the New Testament w-hicli 
has been made in the fourth ceniwy instead of the 
second. The fact, however, is, that thie internal 
evidence of the work before us, seems very sufficient 
to refute the notion of its having been written by 
the heretiek Valentinus ; if we are to beheve the 

iwgabit quisquis ad ejus systema — attenderit. In 2^rimis Phi- 
losopfii(c PlntoniccE, ad quam potissimum mentem appellabant 
Gnostici omnes, opei-am dedisse, testis est Tertullianus [De 
Praescr. cap. 7. 30.] pluraque ab ea accepta dogmata demon- 
strant. Cum in ^^gypto, et prsesertim Alexamlriae^ plurimi 
Judaeorum eo tempore vixerint, hinc verosomile putat Joan^r 
Francisc. Budda^us, in Dissertat. de Haeresi Valentin. — ^^Valen- 
tinura eorinn Philosopkice, qualis eo- tempore eratyj^iusse imhutum. 
^^ Id, ibid. §, 25. " Id ipsum ante Tertullianum [De 
PrcTescr. cap. vii. De An. cap. xvii.] monuerat Iren«;us [Adv. 
Haer. lib. ii. cap. 14.] Valentinianos ex Ethnicis Poetis systematic 
fovmam, e Fhilosophis materiam eruisse. vid. supr. n. ^\ 



( 53 ) 

testimony of TertuUian, on whose antliority it is 
assigned to him. The passag'es of scripture, intro- 
duced into this work are often misquoted in order 
to favour the Gnostick tenets ; but we are assured 
that those contained in the w^orks of Valentinus, 
were faithfully cited, though perversely interpreted 
to support his heretical doctrines '^. We must 
therefore conclude^ not merely from the external 
evidence, which is at best equivocal, but from the 
internal, which seems to estabhsh all that I labour 
to prove, that the work imputed to Valentinus, has 
been ascjibed to him on inconclusive grounds. 

The Sahidick version quoted in the book of 
'' Wisdom," may, consequently, for any thing 
which this argument concludes, be as well ascribed 
to the fourth century as to the second And many 
-weighty reasons may be, I conceive, urged to 
prove, that the former was the period which pro- 
iluced this translation ; several learned and pious 
persons having- been at that time exiled in the 

'* Fragmentt. Vers. Saliid. ub. supr. p. 135. *' Version era 
autem Sahidicam, seu Superioris iEgypti, jam primis post 
Christum natum seculis incuria Scribarum et levitate cic Ucentia 
Gnostlcorum Jiiisse depravatam, e pluribus locis CocUcis Asketvani 
^vanifestissime adparet, praecipue Matt. vi. 21. xviii. 21. xx. 16. 
Xuc. xiii. 25—28. xxii. 30. Rom. xiii. 7." Massuet. Dissert, 
ubi supr. sect. iv. §. 9. p. xvi. *' Certe ne longiiis a proposito 
^eflectam, genuinus Tertullianus hujus libri [De Prtrscrip.] 
cap. xxxviii. Valentinum a crimiiie suppositionis novi Evangelii 
palam absolvit. — * Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtnr. — 
Marcion enim exerte et palam machacra, non stylo usus est : 
quonlam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confeeit : Vo/- 
Icntiniis autem pcpercit^'' &c. 



( 3* ) 

Thebais '^ who could have found no better mode of 
employing their leisure, than in procuring the Scrip* 
tures to be translated for the purpose of enabhng 
them to diffuse Christianity more generally among 
the natives; with whose vulgar tongue they were unr 
acquainted. And this supposition is not a little 
strengthened by the consideration^ that they were ap- 
parently the persons '^^ who brought into Europe the 

'^ S. Hilary, Eusebius Vercellensis, and Lucifer Calaritanus; 
Theodorit. Hist. Eccles. Lib. HL cap. iv. p. 125. 1. 23.--xa< rhq 
vTio }Lcov<)(X-yliii Tojv BuyiKriaicuy e^£>ca^ev7aj l9ri(Tx6^8S" xxl raj 
icrx^Tiocq Tw? olx.iif/,BV7i<; oixavra?, iU Tcci ol)i£laq iT^cC'ViXBf.Tv lx.x?\.via-ioc<; 

Z5^os "Alyy-TTTOV ^irjyov. 1x67 7a§ ocvrss o Kwvi'avrtos s^^co^qdmasv, 
Conf. Socrat, Hist. Eccles. Lib. HL cap. v. p. 177. 1. 2. Sozom. 
Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. cap. xii. p. 197. 1. 39. seq. 

*^ The rarity of these manuscripts in Europe, and the care 
with which they have been preserved, enable us to refer them to 
their respective owners with little comparative difficulty. 
Eusebius's manuscript is supposed to be still preserved at his 
church in Verceli, vid. infr. n. *^: and the coincidence between 
it and the Cambridge manuscript enables us to assign the latter 
to a similar source with it. Hilary's text may be ascertained 
from the Colbert manuscript ; vid. Sabatier. Vers. Ital. SS. 
Bibll. Tom. III. p. XXXV. and the Laudian manuscript, which, 
it is next to certain belonged to the venerable Bede, vid. Woid. 
Praef. Cod. Alexandr. }. 78. as brought out of Sardinia, may 
be thence traced to Lucifer ; vid. Wetsten. Proleg. in Nov, 
Test. Tom. H. p. 449. These deductions are not only con- 
firmed by the history of those christian Fathers, who were versed 
in Greek, and had been exiled in the Thebais, from whence 
thege MSS. were brought j but by this known circumstance 



( 55 ) 
Cambridg-e, and other manuscripts of the same de- 
scription, which resemble the oldest manuscripts '^ of 
the Sahidick version, not merely in their form, as 
attended with a translation ; but in their peculiar 
readings ^°, and the character in which they are 
written *'. The general prevalence of the Greek 

—that a knowledge of that language, if not confined to them, 
was a rarity in Europe : vid. infr. n. ^^, 

'' Such is the fragment of St. Jolw's Gospel which contains 
the Greek text opposed to a Sahidick translation, in the same 
manner as the Cambridge and Clermont MSS. contain the 
Greek opposed to a Latm translation. It has been published 
under the following title : Fragmentum Evangeiii S. Johannis 
Graeco-Copto-thebaicum sasculi iv. Opera et studio F. Augustini 
Antonii Georgii Eremitae Augustiniani Rom. 1789. 

'^^ Kipling. Praef. Cod. Cantab, p. vi. Cognitum nunc ha* 
bemus Codicis Bezce Grreca non tantum cum versionibiis turn 
Syriacis turn Latina, verum etiam cum versionibus Hierosoly- 
mitana, Sahidica, Copticay &c. minim in modum convenire. Conf, 
Fragmentt Vers. Sahid. a Woid. ut supr. p. 131 — 135. where a 
variety of examples are collected, in which the Sahidick Version 
is proved to coincide with the Vulgate and the Cambridge and 
Clermont manuscripts. 

" Kipling. Praef. Cod. Cantab, p. xv. Observarunt eru- 
diti quidam aherrationes [Cod. Bezae] a sueta Grascorum 
orthographia jjronuntiationi JEgyptiacce admodum congruere, 
et in omnibus fere occurrere ex i^gypto allatis codicibus. Quas 
ob causas consuerunt Wetstenius, Woidius, et Spohn, Codicem 
Alexandrinum, cui nimirum aherrationes istee cum Bezae ex- 
emplari communes sunt in JEgi/ptofuisse scriptum — Quid igitur 
obstat, cur non credamus eum qui Bezae exscripsit exemplar 
JEgijptium fiiisse? Talem esse video quidem Antonii Georgii 
sententiam, quo uberius nemo, quod sciam, doctiu&ve lianc rem 
tractavit. Cujus argumentis meum hoc qualecunque subjungere 
liceat, Quod Graeca nostri codicis non tantum A'lgyptiaco scripia 
sunt morCf sed lectionibus praeterea scatent, quas in iEgyptiacis 



( 56 ) 

language, I again repeat, renders It highly impro- 
bable, that this version should be ascribed to a much 
higher period. And the version itself, as abound- 
ing with Greek terms, contains a demonstrative 
proof of the fact, by proving the general prevalence 
of that language in the Thebais. It was the former 
circumstance which seemingly determined the in- 
spired writers in the choice which they made of 
that language, as the medium through which the 
sacred canon was to be published. To this circum- 
stance we are to attribute the republication of the 
Jewish Scriptures in Greek, under the Ptolemies ; 
and we consequently find, in the apostoHcal age, 
that the Greek translation had nearly superseded 
the oriental original. 

The matter under discussion is thus reduced 
within a narrow compass. Deprived of the assist- 
ance of the primitive divines, and of the oriental 
versions, in ascertaining the original text of Scrip- 
ture, our last dependence is rested on the old Italick 
translation. Here, however, it may be as securely 
as naturally placed. The Scripture was not less 

quibusdam, nee in ullis aliis librls compertas Iiabemus. Quibus 
argumentis, quibusque gravissimis auctoribus, ad credendurn 
tandem adducor, JLgyptum esse Bezce exemplaris patriam,''* 
Woide, Prsef. Cod. Ales^andr. Sect. vi. J. 76, " Rationes 
autem, cur in Oriente potius scriptus esse videatur Codex Lau- 
dianus hpe sunt. Eadern est orthographia in eo ac in Alexandri- 
no, £t pro V, et £ pro at ponit, &c. easdem habet breviationes : 
frequentissime ny j^a^jtyrtJto* ; eandem interpunctionem : voces 
antiquo scriptas, ivecrviv pro hvocTriv, £^»/>tv]/£v pro Ihn-^tv : et quod 
pra^cipuum, eosdem ductus Uteraruin jSed pinguiores, et festinanter, 
jiec intra lin.eas scriptos," 



( 57 ) 
committed to the keeping* of the Latin than of the 
Greek churchy as the witnesses of its autlienticity, 
and the guardians of its purity ; and the knowledge 
of the languages spoken by those churches, w^as 
nearly commensurate with the Roman and Macedo- 
nian conquests. The former cliurch possessed a 
translation^ which^ as generally quoted by the Latin 
fathers previously to the council of Nice_, was con- 
sequently made previously to any alterations which 
the original might have undergone under Constan- 
tine. This translation has been celebrated for its 
literal fidelity "^ and we have this security of its 
having long continued unaltered "-^ that the Latins 
were not sufficiently instructed in the language of 
the original, to undertake the correction of the tran- 
slation. So very rare was the humble qualification 
of reading Greeks that we have every reason to 
believe^ it was possessed by few of the Latins, Ter- 
tullian excepted '^, until the age of Constantine ; 
when the councils convened against the Arians, 
opened that intercourse between the eastern and 
western churches, which familiarized the latter with 
the origmal language of the sacred canon ^^ After 

" Vid. S. August. De Doctrin. Christ. Lib. II. cap. xv. Torn. 
III. p. 27. g. ed. Bened. " In ipsis autem interpretationibus 
Itala caeteris praeferatur ; nam est 'verborum tenacior cum ^Jers* 
jpicuitate sententia;,^^ 

*^ Hilar. Diac. Com. in Rom. v. ** Constat autem quosdam 
Latinos porro olim de veteribus Greeds translatos codicibus quos 
incorruptos simplicitas temporum sernavit, et probat,'^ Sec. 

"■' Vid. Pamel. Vit. Tertul. ad An. Chr. 197. ed. Franc. 
1597. 

*^ Twenty years after this intercourse had commenced, the 
Latin fathers made this avowal of their ignorance of the Greek, 



( ^8 ) 

that period, Hilary, Lucifer, and Eusebius of Verceli 
arose, who are represented as possessed of learning 
sufficient to revise the old Italick translation^^. 
St. Jerome was of a later period, who undertook 
that thorough revision of the text which has produced 
the present Vulgate : yet even in the same age, St. 
Augustine appears to have been but moderately 
versed in the Greek language. 

In proceeding to estimate the testimony which the 
Latin translation bears to the state of the Greek 

in declining to subscribe to the confession proposed to them hy 
the Orientalists ; Socr. Hist. Ecci. Lib. II. cap. xx. p. 103. 1. 3, 

TavToc ot y.ccToe. ra lairifia, ijt,epvi £9ri(7xo7rot, ^ta to ocXT^oyXa/a-aovq iivca, 
XOii 01(4 TO (xri avvicvaciy a Tr^ocr^e^ovrop upniTv rn^ \v Ntxaia "Trifty 
y^iyovrtc, 

** This must be inferred from the part which Eusebius Ver- 
cellensis, Hilary, and Lucifer took in the affairs of the Greek 
church ; the return of those bishops to their dioceses, after the 
council held at Alexandria, under St. Athanasius, is recorded 
by the ecclesiastick historians ; Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. Ill, 
cap. ix. p. 184s 1. 33. cap. x. p. 185. 1. 8. — x-kku, A^xzcpe^ 
tri» osyY,v uvo'jrh'n^ucrcci -dK Xcr-^jaiv e^s^eto ya^ 'va^c, eauTS «9ro^o7^«^?J 

KA^vTrea-VBTo. ^ioTrifi ocuros posv rris BKK7^7iaiciS (p^ovwv, els" T':^v 2a^- 
Savt'av Itti tov oIxeTov S"§ovov dTTS^uf^si. ol h 'sj^ots^ov a-vXXvTrr,'- 
^BvTsq uvra, 'iri xat vvv t^j iKyJ^riy^xq ^u^i^ovrai. sLuai^iOS fxsvroi 
^i)iY,v uyciBS lare^ xara rriv uvaToXriV rccq iiTopiiocq 'CTOt««,£vo?, laq 
ria-^iVYiKorocq tAyipi T'/jf 'UjW^v oc,vs?\ei,[JL^oi.i£f fOi^siuv nxl oioocaKUv rex, Ijj- 
y.^^ytaiccTf'iCC Kri^vyyi.ctrcc' fXiTa^cci ^e IxsTBtVf i'rri n 'lAAv^i«? 'urci-^ctyUtroct, 
xai 'IraXicts swiloecSy ra. avra, ^lETTqccrlcTO. 'E<p^ay.e* ^s Kotl 
'IXdpios, YlvA-ra,^ iu)v gTricrjtoTro?, tetoXi? ^e atlrvj ^fyrt'^ag AxvTavta<r, 
«Z3-poxaTa^E|SAv3^£yo$ roi t5j? q^o^o^h 'crirEWS ^oy^ocrocj tok Te !» IrocXiot 
xat TaKhia. im^y.o'noiq'' xaci ya^ zj^ors^os rris s^o^iccs \7iccMuVy 
xocrsiXYi<pn Tiig totthc. a[JL(pc>} yt.iv dv ytvvxiuq t55 "Crirei crvnTtyuvlaxvro* 

(:onf. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xiii. p. 119. 1. 11. 



{ 59 ) 
text, it is necessary to premise, that this transkriom 
exhibits three varieties :— As corrected by St. Jerome 
at the desire of Pope Damasus *^ and preseiTcd in 
the Vuigate ; as corrected by Eusebius of Verceli. 
at the desire of Pope Juhus, and preserved in the 
Codex Vercellensis '' ; and as existing previously 
to the corrections of both, and preserved as I con- 
ceive, in the Codex Brixianus '^. The first of these 
three editions of the Itahck translation is too well 
known to need any description ; both the last are con- 
tained in beautiful manuscripts, preserved at Ver- 
celi, and at Brescia, in Italy. The curious and ex- 
pensive manner in which at least the latter of these 
jnanuscripts is executed, as written on purple veiluna 

*■ Vid. supr. p. 15. n.^^. 

*^ F. H. Rugger. Cod. Vercel. Descrip. ap. Blancliin. Evang. 
Quadr. Proleg. p. 57. — " exstant et docuraenta plurima certs 
fidoi, monumentisque publicis conslgnata, ex quibus ediscimus, 
librum quatnor Evangdwrum a magno saiicto Patre nostro 
Episcopo et Martyre Eusebio ex Gr^Bcanicis litteris ante Divum 
Hieronymum esse redditum, Hac ipsa igitur facultate Graecarum 
litterarum iectionis ea perfectione llomaj potiebatur, ut Jtdras 
Poidifex Maxirnus Marci successor, qui Eusebium sacro pres- 
byterali charactere insignivit, existimavit ilium non sibi soli 
vacare, sed etiam ChnsLiana^ Reipubiicas prodesse debere ; ut 
Jiabetur ex antiquissimis tabulis, in quibus eundem Eusebium 
interpretem scicrorum volumiiium designatum a Summo Pontifxe 
fuisse traditur. Grsecas enim literas non alio proposito sibi fine 
* didicerat, quam ut perfectius Sacrarum Literarum arcana dig- 

nosceret." 

*^ The description of this MS. which may, as I conceive, be 

referred to Phiiastrius Brixiensis, as I shall endeavour to shew 

hereafter, is given in Blanchin. Evang. Quadrupl. Proleg. Tom. 

Lp.5, 



( 60 ) 

in silver characters '°^ would of itself contain no 
inconclusive proof of its great antiquity ; such having 
been the form in which the most esteemed works 
were executed in the times of Eusebius^ Chrysostome^ 
and Jerome ^\ The former is ascribed^ by im- 
memorial tradition^ to Eusebius Vercellensis^ the 
friend of Pope Julius and St. Athanasius^ and^ as 
supposed to have been written with his own hand, 
is deposited among the relicks, which are preserved 
with a deg-ree of superstitious reverence, in the 
authour's church at Verceli in Piedmont ^\ By these 

3° P. Garbel. Descr. Cod. Brix. ap. Blanchin. ibid. p. 10. 
*' Forma Codicis [Brixiani] oblonga est ita, ut latitudinem 
ferme quadrante superet. Ejus membran£e, licet purjmra tinctce 
fuerint^ plurimae tamen, vetustate teraporis, cserulei speciera 

praese-ferunt. Caracteres, argenteo qiiodam figmcnto sunt 

liti : cujus tamen color, multis in locis evanidus, aureitm si' 
mulaty fallitque, nisi intente inspiciatur. Unde et nos olim Co' 
dicem Aureiim vocabamus." 

2' Barret. Cod. Rescript. Dublinens. Proleg. p. 9. " Mem- 
branas, super quas describitur [Cod. Dublinens.] videntur pri- 
mitus piirpurei fidsse colons : quod indicium est magna; vetus- 
iaiis. Sic Chrysost. in Job. Horn, xxxii. kccI v) 'oroicra. ctvro^i 

ffTtaort 'UJi^k Tnv Tccv v^ivuv AsWToTijra, xa* to t^-'v ypotjj.y.cx.rav y.aAAoq—— 

cTi x^'^To^^ £xei y^a^^ccarj. Tom. II. ed. Savil. p. 6S6. Testatur 
vero Capitolinus in Vit. Maximini ; ominis imperii in loco illi 
fuisse, quod omnes libri Homerici, qui illi puero porrigerentur, 
fuerunt jmrpure/y Uteris mireis inscripti.^* 

^^ Rugger. Cod. Vercel. Descrip. ubi supr. " De vero pos- 
sessore hujus sacri voluminis prscter antiquam constantissiraara 
venerationem, quam seniper erga illud, Capitulum et Ecclesia 
professa est, illud asserxnndo in ipsomet sacra Reliquiarum depositor 
ubi sanctorum, prophctarum, apostolorum, plurimorumque 
martyrum ossa cUstodiuntur, exstant et docuraenta plurima 
certCE iidtfij dx. vid. supr. n, ^^« 



( 61 ) 

three editions of the translation^ we might naturally 
expect to acquire some insight into the varieties of 
the original. And this expectation is fully justified 
on experiment. The latter, not less than the 
former, is capable of being distributed into three 
kinds ; each of which possesses an extraordinary 
coincidence with one of a correspondent kind, in 
the translation. In a word, the Greek manuscripts 
are capable of being divided into three principal 
classes, one of which agrees with the Italick transla- 
tion contained in the Brescia manuscript ; another 
with that contained in the Verceli manuscript ; and 
a third with that contained in the Vulgate. 

In ascertaining the particular Greek manuscripts 
which, as possessing this coincidence with the Latin, 
may be taken as the exemplars of each class, we 
have few difficulties to encounter. The affinity 
existing between the Vatican manuscript and the 
Vulgate is so striking, as to have induced Dr. Bent- 
ley, and M. Wetstein to class them together ^\ And 

51 Wetsten. Proleg. in Nov. Test. Tom. I. p. 26. Neque 
vei'O cur eorum testimonium in dubium vocari debet ; cum co7z- 
Jirmetur et -per R. Beyitleium, qui saepe inter amicos narrare 
solebat, Vaticanum Codicem in omnibus fere cum Alexandrino, 
adeoqne etiam., ut supra demonstravimus, cum 'versioiie Itala, 
convenire : et re ipsa, nam Mat. v. 22. non habet sIk^, 1 John 
iv. 3. non habet x^^^^* ''^ <'"«?x* iM^^v^ora, ; ut alia passim iji var. 
led. nostris annotata taceam.^* The collation of the Vatican 
MS. made for Dr. Bentley is published by Dr. Ford at the end 
of his Fragmentt. Vers. Sahidic. Oxon. 1799. by its assistance, 
the affinity between the Vulgate and Vatican manuscript may 
be directly discovered on comparison. 



( 62 ) 
1 proceed to ofTer some proofs that the affinity of 
the Harleian and Moscow manuscript ^^ with the 
Brescia manuscript ; and tliat of the Codex Can- 
tabrigiensis with the Verceh manuscript^ is not 
kss striking and extraordinary. So that the Har- 
leian and Moscow manuscript, the Cambridge ma- 
nuscript, and the Vatican m^anuscript, (as re- 
spectively coinciding with the Brescia manuscript, 
tliQ YerccH manuscript, and the Vulgate) may be 
taken as exemplars of the three principal classes 
into which the Greek manuscripts may be distri* 
buted. 

The subjoined specimen, taken from the first 
chapter of the Sermon on the Mount, will furnish a 
tolerably just idea of the nature and closeness of this 
coincidence. I shall prefix the readings of the 
Received Text, and authorized English version, in 
order to evince their coincidence with that text, to 
which the preference appears to be due, on account 
of its conformity to the Italick translation contained 
in the Brescia manuscript. 

2^^ These MSS. are designated by M. Griesbach, " G, and 
Mt. V." The former is preserved in the British Museum, where 
it is marked Harl. 5684' : it is assigned to the tenth century, and 
is described by M. Griesbach Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. Ixiv. — 
The latter is a manuscript of the S. Synod at Moscow, which 
has been described by M. Mattha^i Nov. Test. Tom. IX. p. 265^ 
and is conceived by him to be of the eighth century. It 
remains to be observed, that the various readings of this MS. 
in the annexed collation are taken from M. Mattha^i's text and 
notes. The Harleian MS. wants the five first chapters of St* 
Matthew ; its various readings have been consequently omitted 
in the annexed collation of texts. 



( e3 ) 

— blessed are they that mourn, &c. AtdL 
fA«xa§joi ol ixr^xBTq x. r. I. Cant, ■ beati mites, &c. Vera, 
f/.oty.a.^ioi ot 'EJsv^Svreq. x. t. I. Vat, beati miteSf &c. Vulg. 
/xajtagtot oi crs^SSvTej k. t. t, beati qui lugenty &c. JSrix* 

MOSG. 

5. f/.ocy.a.^iOi o» i^^aErg x. T. I. ii^C. 

— blessed are the meek, <&rc. Aitth. 

^a.y.a,^ioi ot 'SiTBvBiivTei;, x, T. 1. beati qui lugenf, &c, Verc* 

Cant. 

fAXKo-oioi ol -nr^ae?; x. r. I. Vat, beati 5'z« lugenty &c, Vulg* 

f/.aKccfm ol ^m^xiic,, x, r. I. Mosc. beati mansueii, Brix, 

11. xa^' y^M-wy v^sr'^o/XSVOl svExey e/xh. ^^C. 

— against you falsely for .my sake. ^wif^. 

xa$' t-jiAwy 'inxiv Jixatofft/vajs-. adversum vos propter /zw^/i/aw* 

Crt72f. Fere. 

xaS' t-jwwv Nj'ef^o/xcvot my.o I/laS. adversum vos mcntientes prop- 

^a#, ter me, Vulg, 

xaS' ^^^y >j/eyoopt£voi mxty sptS. adversum vos mentientes prop- 

j\fo^c. ^^^ ^^^« Brix. 

12. Iv Tor? «|«i/orf, Rec, 

— in heaven, Auth, 

|y Tw i^uva. Cant. in coelo. F^rc. 

tj* TO?? «^a>or?. Vat, in ccelis. Fzi/o-. 

•» T6K tfgaxor?. iVfo^c. in coslis, Brix. 

13. 6»s «o£v t<r;)(^yEt %ri. JRec. 

— it is thenceforth good for nothing. Atith, 

tlq H^\v Icr^iti. Cant. ad nihilum valet. Verc, 

«i? hTiv \a^i% 6TI, Vai, ad nihilum valet ultra, Vulg, 

»»? tfJi» »Vx^gt £Ti. Mosc, ati nihilum valebit w/^rn. ^nV- 



( 64 ) 

— angry with his brother tviihoid a cause, AutJt, 
o^yi^ofXBvoq rZ a,oiX(()Z avr^ shij^ qui irascitur fratri suo sine cau* 

Cant, sa . Vera, 

a^yt^ofA,Evo<; rco uh\(pZ ayra. Vaf, qui irascitur fratri suo. Vulg. 
agyit,o!Xivo(; ru uoi?i(pu avTH ilan. qui irascitur fratri SUO 5zwe ctfM- 

Mosc, sa, Brix, 






27. Ipcs^r) roT^ oc^yccioiq, ReC, 

— it has been said b^ them of old time, AutTi^ 

Canf, dictum est. Vera, 

Vat, Mosc dictum est. Brix, 

dictum est antiquis, Corh* 

Vuk. 



i^^sBn To7<; u.^'^ou\o\c, 



30. ^j>~.f^'A £K yhnOLV, Rec. 
— be cast into hell. Auth, 

a-Tlik^rn £i; yiinav, Canf, 
tU yhv'jav a-TiiX^^, Vat, 
^,'K'fi^'Q sU yiivvcci, MoSC. 



eat in gehennam. Vera, 
eat in gehennam. Vulg, 
mittatur in gehennam. B7ix, 



S2. >-eyu} viA.h on. Rec, 

— I say unto you that. Auth. 

r^iyoi v^fAv. Cant. dico vobis. Verc, 

7,iyu lyAv on. Vat, dico vobis quia, Vulg, 

>,iyu l^uv on, Mosc, dico vobis quia, Brix. 



32. oq loiv u'jToT^t'KvfXivriV ycc(A.Y)c-yj [j.oi^eiroci, ReC, 

— whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, com- 
mitteth adultery. Azith, 

desunt. Canf, . desunt. Vercel, 

o i.itQX\>.vifAvr,y yxiAr.ffx^ /xot;)(;aTat qui dimissam duxerit adidteraU 

Vat, Vulg, 

05 la,i uTro%i\vy.ivnv yxfA^c-rt p.oi- qui dimissam duxerit mcecha* 

XUT6H, Mo^c. tur, Brix. 



( 66 ) 



— . and a tooth for a tooth. Auth, 



i^oyret uvr) o^o»to?. Cant, 
HCU o^ovra am oJo'vto?, Vat, 



dentem pro dentem. Verc, 
et dentem pro dente. Vulg, 
et dentem pro dente. Brix, 



41. vvaye /xet* avrn ^vo, R6C» 

— go with him twain. Auth, 

vTrotyt y^tr avrS tn aXK» ^V9. vade cum illo adhuc alia duo. 

Cant, Verc. 

Zvaye /aet* ayrS ^vo. Vat, vade cum illo et alia duo. 

Vulg, 
vfr«7i f«ET avrS ^vo. Mosc» vade cum illo duo. Brix, 

— bless them that curse you. Auth, 
ii}^(iyt7rt T8? xaI«gw/Ae»tf? »/*«? dcsunt. Ki^ri?. 

desunt. Vat. desunt. Vulg, 

»v\oyt7ri t«5 ««]«pft;/Afy»$ y/^«j. benedicite maledicentibus vos» 
Mosc. ^rix, 

xat ^iUMvruv v^ioiq, Rec, 
— pray for them who despitefuUy use you 
and persecute you. Auth. 



xa* ^tUKOVTuv vfAoiq, Cant, 

^^offtvp(^tff^e i/Vi^ ruv oiuKovruv v* 
f*Ss. Vat, 

MOSG. 



orate pro calumniantlbus et 
persequentibus vos. Verc* 

orate pro persequentibus et 
calumniantlbus vos Vulg* 

orate pro calumniantibus vobis 
et persequentibus vos. Brix» 



( 66 ) 

This short specimen ^^ will sufficiently evince the 
affinity which the Greek and Latin manuscripts 
bear to each other^ throughout the different classes, 
into which they may be divided. It will also 
illustrate the dissimilarity which those classes ex- 
hibit among themselves^ in either language^ re- 
garded separately. In order to evince the affinity 
which in other respects they possess among them- 
selves^ it will be necessary to view a connected por- 
tion of the sacred text,, in the original and the 
translation. For this purpose I shall subjoin the 
opening of the same chapter from whence the fore- 
cited various readings have been extracted ; inclu- 
ding that part of the Sermon on the Mount which 
contains the beatitudes. 

35 These examples may be augmented to any required extent^ 
with very little trouble to the undertaker. The principal 
coincidences of the Received Text and Brescia MS. in readings 
which differ from the Vulgate, have been collected by M* 
Blanchini, and may be seen in his Evangel. Quadr. P. I. fol, 
cdlxxxv. seq. P. II. cdlxix. seq. On comparing the list of 
texts there collected from the Vulgate, with the collation of 
the Vatican MS. made for Dr. Bentley, see n. *^ ; the striking 
coincidence of their respective texts will be directly apparent* 
For a proof of the coincidence of the Cambridge and Verceli 
MSS. the reader may be referred to the lower margin of M* 
Blanchini's Evangeliarium Quadruples who has noted the co- 
incident readings with much pains. 

It may be necessary to observe, that in the above list of textsr, 
those selected from the Vatican MS. are taken from the various 
readings published by Dr. Ford, as already referred to n. ^\ 
The Moscow MS. is defective in Mat. v. 44. but the reading 
of this text may be taken from the other MSS. of M. Matthaei; 
as they harmonize with thiis MS. in an extraordinary manner. 



( 67 ) 



Class J. 



Cocl^ Cant 

t?5 TO egoj* xat xaSicrayl^-ayTtf, 

«yT8' 

2. Ka< avot|a? to HfAXOiVTu^ 

5. M«x«f»ot o» cr76;%ot To; 

9FVeviA,0cli' OT* UV7UU tfiV 7t 

^«<rtAefa tw» a^civuv, 

B* M«x«ptot o» wpae??* eV* 
<tvTot xX»jpoi'OjK,^crayt t^v y?v% 

4. M«xa§»ot oi WEV^oyvles* 
fT» ftWTOi ^a^axXij^^croj^ai. 

6. M«xap»o» ot vreivfjvle^ iiott 
cj-vI/wvIes t^» ^xato<ry»»3v' or* 

7» Maxapio* o» sAE^/iAoy£$* or» 
tit'To) lA£»}Si<rc»T«». 

xap^'ta* o7» avloi rov Qbovq-^ovIoci* 

9. MaxatfMfc of tl^vivoTroioi* 
2t» t'to* 0hS xXijGjjaovJaj, 

10. Maxapio* of ^i^itiyiA,h<n 
f»sx£» 5ixato<rt;yi75 • oTt ctvTuf 

11. Maxapioi lr£> oVav 3li- 
tif^uaif xj ov«^ta"(yi7i> xa* £;7r«^» 
•nrai/ woy»)pov p?/A« x«6* v^uvy 
ifExa S'ixatoo'VJ'^?. 

12. Xaipels xa* a'y«^^»a5•6s• 
«T» /u.Kr9o? t-jLtwv 'croX^? |v t« 
«q)«»<w*«Tft;? yap £^i4;|«i' T»iTErpo- 



1. Videns autem Jesus turbam, 
ascendit in montem, et cum se- 
disset, accesserunt ad eum disci- 
puli ejus ; 

2. Et aperult os suumj et doce* 
bat eos dicens : 

3. Beati pauperesspiritu: quo- 
niam ipsorum est regnum cce« 
lorum. 

5. Beati mites : quoniam ipsi 
hereditate possidebunt terram. 

4. Beati qui lugent : quoniam 
ipsi consolabuntur. 

6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam : quoniam ipsi satura- 
buntur. 

7. Beati misericordes ; quia 
ipsis miserebitur Deus. 

8. Beati mundo corde: quoniam 
ipsi Deum videbunt. 

9. Beati pacifici : quoniam filii 
Dei vocabuntur. 

10. Beati qui persecutlonem 
patiuntur propter justitiam : quo- 
niam ipsorum est regnum coelorum. 

11. Beati estis, cum vos ma- 
ledicent, et persequentur, etdicent 
omne malum adversum vos propter 
Justitiam. 

12. Gaudete et exultate : quo- 
niam merces vestra copiosa est in 
coelo. Sic enim persecuti sunt 



f ^T«c, T»j wpo v^mvTroi^^Qvlei^, prophetas qui erant ante vqs« 

f3 



( 68 ) 



Class IL 

Cod, Vat, Vers, Vulg. 

1, lluv ^\ T»5 ox^'H^i eitie^n !• Videns autem turbas ascendit 
ft? TO opoi' KuiKocQ'ta-ccvl^ otvToVf in montem, et cum sedisset acces- 
•crpocr^AGoy [ayrw] of ^aG^jlat scrunt ad euin discipuli ejus : 

tlVTOV* 

2. Ka» a,vQi^at<; to ro/AaayTtf, 2. Et aperiens OS suum, docebat 

f3"t(Sa<rx£v avrhi >,iyuv, COS dicens : 

S. Maxagjot of <Eri6;;)5jot T« 3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quo- 
vTviviAoSii' oT* ctvlwv lr»» h /3a- niam ipsorum est regnum cceIo- 
cO\.i\» ruv ^^ecvuv, rum, 

4. Mazapm of «r£vGowv7e{' 5. Beati mites : quoniam ipsi 
»li ccwlo) -ETapaxXyjG^o-oylat, possidebunt terram. 

4. Beati qui lugent : quoniam 
ipsi consolabuntur. 

6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam: quoniam ipsi satura- 
buntur. 

7. Beati raisericordes : quia ipsi 
misericordiam consequcntur. 

8. Beati mundo corde: quo- 
xuf^ia.* oTiavTolrovQeove^ovlon. niam ipsi Deum videbunt. 

9. Maxapto* of e^privovo^oi^ 9, Beati pacifici : quoniam ipsi 
filii Dei vocabuntur. 

10. Beati qui persecutionem pa- 
tiuntur propter justitiam: quoniam 
ipsorum est regnum ccelorum. 

11. Beati estis, cum maledix- 
erint vobis et persecuti vos fuerint, 
et dixerint omne malum adversura 
vos, mentientes propter me. 

12. Gaudete et exultate: quo- 
niam merces vestra copiosa est in 
coelis. Sic enim persecuti sunt 
prophetas, qui fuerunt ante vos. 



5. Majta^toi of /BTpettTf" ot» 
a^Tot xXjjpovo/xwcTtfa* T^* yrjy, 

6. MotKoipioii of 'metvuvle^ Kut 

7. Maxapiot of IXe^^ove?* 
«T» ayToi aX£>j6^croj/7a». 

8. Maxagjoi of xsiQct^o) rii 



eTt avro) v^o) ©eov xAfjO^croylat. 

10. MocKoifioi of h^tuyjAsvoi 
fVEKX hutnoavvviq' on avruv ln» 
i ^Affi^iiK Tuv efotvuv, 

11. MciKoi^ioi ifSf oTay 

C(V Ka-a VfJLUV 'BTXV IffDWiDOV 

12. Xaip/Iix^ ayaX^iao-Of, 
•T» • jiAicrOo? y/ittoj' <cro?vy5 si/ 
TO*? tipcivoX';' ovru yocp lyiu^av 



( 69 ) 



Class IIL 



Cod. Mosc. 



Cod. Brh. 



•'? TO ogo?* xat y.u^iffocv\oq ayrS, 

2. Kat avoi^aq to rofACC 
«vt5j lot^ao-HEJ otvraq >>iyuv' 

3. MUftoifiOl of 'Cjlwp^OJ TW 

W£Vfjf.u]t* oTt atnuv i<-iv h ^a- 
rAEitt Toiv apoivuv, 

4. Maxapo* ot 'ZzrsySSv/ES* oTt 
•tyroi •arapaxXyjfi^o'ovIat. 

5* M.xx.sifioi ot <icr^£eEr^* on 
•tyTo* KXiipovo/x^o-ao-j tJjv 7>j>. 

6. Maxapot ot >meivuvlt(; xoct 
ot-vj/wwe? T'/jv o;xat3c7yv'/3»* «r», 
avTot ;^opTacr6i7cro»I«j. 

7. MuKoc^iOi 01 eXs^^ovES* ot» 

8. Maxaptot o» xadcepot t>) 
xac^»a* 0T» ayloi Toi'0£O>o4'Oj'1aj» 

9. May.ocfiOi oi elprji/OTroioi* 
«Tt ayToi ytot 0Ea xXy]9)2C7oy]a(. 

10. Mxx.cifioi o» ofd(6;7u£»oi 
JyExii' 3'txa»o<ryvvjs* on uvruv Ifiv 
i |3a<r»AE»a t2» ifuvuv, 

11. Maxapio* Ef E oVa:/ oy«Ji- 
erft;(7(v xat ^iu^ua% not.) i'l'TFuo'i 
tarav -arovvj^ov ^^ji^a x«9 vfAuvj 

12. Xaipslfi xat ayaXXtacrOe 
oTf pjcr6o{ y^wv Tiroy ev Tor? 



1. Videns autem turbas ascen* 
dit in montem, et cum sedisset 
accesserunt ad eum discipuli ejus ; 

2. Et aperiens os suum, docebat 
eos dicens : 

3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quo- 
niam ipsorum est regnum ccelo- 
rum. 

4. Beati qui lugent : quoniam 
ipsi consolabuntur. 

5. Beati raansueti: quoniam 
ipsi hereditabunt terram. 

6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam: quoniam ipsi satura- 
buntur. 

7. Beati misericordes : quoniam 
ipsi misericordiam consequentur. 

8. Beati mundi corde : quoniam 
ipsi Deum videbunt. 

9* Beati pacifici ; quoniam ipsi 
filii Dei vocabuntur. 

10. Beati qui persecutionem 
patiuntur propter justitiam : quo- 
niam ipsorum est regnum ccelorum. 

11. Beati eritis cum exprobra- 
verint vos, et persequentur, et dix- 
erint omne malum adversum yos^ 
mentientes propter me. 

12. Gaudete et exultate : quo- 
niam merces vestra copiosa est in 
coelis. Sic enim persecuti sunt 
prophetas qui fuerunt ante vos. 



( 70 ) 

A few general observations will suffice on the 
subject of those different classes of manuscripts in 
the Greek and Latin^ as preliminary to further de- 
ductions. 

That the manuscripts in both languages possess the 
same text^ though evidently of different classes, must 
be evident on the most casual inspection ; they respec- 
tively possess that identity in the choice of terms and 
arrangement of the language^ which is irreconcila- 
ble with the notion of their having descended from 
different archetypes. And though these classes, in 
either language, vary among themselves, yet, as the 
translation follows the varieties of the original, the 
Greek and Latin consequently afford each other mu- 
tual confirmation. The different classes of text in 
the Greek and Latin translation, as thus coinciding^ 
may be regarded as the conspiring testimony, of 
those Churches which were appointed the wit- 
nesses and keepers of Holy Writ, to the existence of 
three species of text in the original and the transla* 
tion. 

On this conclusion we may however found ano- 
ther deduction relative to the antiquity of this testi- 
mony. As the existence of a translation necessa- 
rily implies the priority of the original from which 
it was formed ; this testimony may be directly re- 
ferred to the close of the fourth century. The Vul- 
gate must be clearly referred to that period, as it 
was then formed by St. Jerome '^; in its bare exist- 

^° This period is antedated by St. Jerome, to the fourteenti* 
year of the emperor Theodosius ; A. D. 393. S. Hieron. Ca- 



( 71 ) 

ence of course the correspondent antiquity of the 
Greek text with which it agrees, is directly esta- 
bhshed. This version is, however, obviously less 
antient than that of the Verceli or Brescia manu- 
script ; as they are of the old Italick translation, 
while it properly constitutes the new. In the ex- 
istence of the antient version, the antiquity of the 
original texts with which it corresponds is conse- 
quently established. The three classes of text 
which correspond with the Vulgate and Old Italick 
Version, must be consequently referred to a period 
not less remote than the close of the fourth cen- 
tury. 

In attaining the testimony of the Greek and La- 
tin Churches, at a period thus antient, we have ac- 
quired some solid ground to proceed upon. But 
this testimony is of still greater importance, as it 
affords a foundation on which we may rest the tes- 
timony of St. Jerome, who flourished at that period. 
To his authority the highest respect is due, not 
merely on account of his having then lived, and 
formed one of the versions of the Latin church, but 
his great reputation in biblical criticism. His testi- 
mony, while it confirms the foregoing deductions, 
made from the internal evidence of the Greek and 
Latin manuscripts, affords a clue which will guide us 
through this obscure and intricate subject. He bears 
witness to the existence of three editions of the sa- 

talog. Scriptt. Eccleslass. sub. fin. Tom. I. p. 132. " Usque 
in praesentem annum, id est, Theodosii decimum quartum haec 

scrips! No'cum Testamejitwn Grcvccujidel reddidit Vetus jux- 

la Hebraicam transtuU.'* 



( 73 ) 
cred text, in his own age^ which he refers to 
Egypt^ Palestine^ and Constantinople '^. This tes- 
timony is the rather deserving of attention^ as it 
confirms^ in an extraordinary manner, the previous 
assumption relative to the existence of three classes 
of text : and^ as on the same broad distinction of the 
country where they are found ^^ the Greek manu- 
scripts have been distinguished, by modern criticks 
into three different classes, two of which are re- 
ferred to Egypt and Constantinople. 

The result of the investigation to which this view 
of the subject leads, will, I trust, end in deduc- 
tions not less important than certain. It will, I am 
fond enough to hope, prove beyond all reasonable 
ground of objection, that the three classes of texty 
which are discoverable in the Greek manuscripts, 
are nearly identical with the three editions, which 



37 S. Hier. Praef. in Parallpomm. Tom. III. p. ^43. " Si 
Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa 
est, permaneret; superflue me, Chromati, Episcoporum sanc- 
tissime, atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebraea volumina 
Latino sermone transferrem. — Nunc vero, cum pro varietate rC' 
gionumy diver sa ferantut exemplaria; et gerraana ilia anti- 
xjuaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata : nostri arbitrii pu- 
tas, 2M.t e pluiibus IwAiQWce quid verum sit ; aut novum opus 
in veteri opere cudere, illudentib usque Judaeis, cornicum, ut di- 
citur, oculos confingere. Alexandria et Mgyptus in septuaginta 
guis HesycJiium laudat auctorem, Constantinojjolis usque ad Anti- 
ochiam Luciani martyris ejcemplaria prohat. Mediae inter has 
provinciae Palcestinos codices legimt, quos ab Origine elaboratos 
Eusebius et Pamphilus vidgaverunf, Totusque orbis hac inter 
$e trifaria varietate compugnat." Conf. p. 11. u. ^* 

i^ Vid. supr. pp. 4, 5. 



( 73 ) 
existed in the age of St. Jerome: with which 
they are identified by their coincidence with the 
Latin translation, which existed in the age of that 
christian father. 



Of Class J. 

That the Cambridge manuscript, which is the 
exemplar of the First Class, contains the text which 
St. Jerome refers to Egypt, and ascribes to Hesy- 
chius, seems to be sumciently estabhshed by the 
following considerations : 

1. It is next to certain, that this manuscript was 
originally imported from Egypt into the west of 
Europe. It not only conforms in the style of its 
characters to the form of the Egyptian letters, but 
in its orthography to the Egyptian mode of pronun- 
ciation ^9. It also possesses the lessons of the Egyp- 
tian church noted in its margin. In proof of which 
those passages may be specified, which occur in St. 
John, relative to our Lord's interview with the Sa- 
maritan woman, and his walking on the sea ; which 
were appointed to be read in the Egyptian church 
at the period when the Nile was retiring from its 
channel. We consequently find both places distin- 
guished by that mark, which declares them to have 
been lessons read at that period ^\ And agreeably 

35 Vid. supr. p. 55. ti. *'. 

"^ Kipling. Pnef. in Cod. Cantab, p. xvi. " Denique anag- 
nostae solebant vEgyptiacij instante annua Nili exundatione. 



( 74 ) 
to this representation, we find this manuscript re- 
ferred to Egypt, by the genemlity of criticks who 
have undertaken its description*'. As it was thus 
authoritatively read in the church, it evidently fur-* 
nishes a specimen of the text which from a remote 
period prevailed in Egypt. 

2. The same conclusion is confirmed, in an ex- 
traordinary degree by the coincidence of this manu- 
script with the vulgar translation of the Egyptians. 
Of the different species of text which modern cri- 
ticks discover in the Greek manuscripts, that of 
the Cambridge manuscript is observed to coincide, 
to a degree surpassing* all expectation, not only 
with the common Coptick translation *% but particu- 
larly the Sahidick version ^K As Greek was ma- 

Sabbatis apud populum legere, quae Joannes tradldit Evange- 
lista de midiere Smnaritana, diebusque simul Dominicis, quae 
scriptis idem mandavit de Jesu Christo supra mare ambulante* 
Roperies autem, in nostro codice, cum banc turn illam seo 
tionem, verbo ANAFNOXMA insignitam." 

*^ Vid. supr. p. 55, n. **. 

** Vid. supr. p. 55, n. ^°. 

45 The affinity between the Cambridge manuscript and the 
Sahidick version is pointed out by Miinter, Dissert, de Indol. 
Vers. Sahldic. pp. 10 — 46. A table of their coincident readings 
is given by Dr. Woide, Fragmentt. Vers. Sahid. pp. 132, 133: 
and every page in the antecedent collation of texts contained in 
the same work, abounds in examples. I shall present the 
reader with a specimen, taken from a single chapter of St. Mat- 
thew, of the coincidence of this MS. and version, in additions, 
contractions, alterations, &c. of the sacred text. Matt, xviii. 
10. Ivoq rZv ij.iK^u» reluv Bee. Mosc. unum ex hispusillis. Brixi 
but this clause is thus enlargedy hU ruv (jny.^uv rulav CTis'6fov7wv 
£ij epis, Cajzt, Sahid. unum ex his pusillis qui credunl in me. 



( 75 ) 
tiifestly the current language of Egypt **, and ma* 
nuscripts in that language were as obviously preva- 
lent in Egypt "^5 ; w^e must conceive that the vulgar 
translations of this country were accommodated to 
the generality of those manuscripts with which the 
natives were acquainted. The conformity of the 
Codex Cantabrigiensis to those versions conse- 
quently proves, that this manuscript contains the 
text_, which in St. Jerome's age, when the Sahidick 
version was apparently formed ^^^ was generally 
prevalent in Egypt. 

3. In the extraordinary coincidence of the Cam- 
bridge manuscript with the old Italic!: version pre- 
served in the manuscript of Verceli, we have a fur- 
ther proof, which establishes the same conclusion. 
This version was corrected by St. Eusebius of Ver- 
celi'^7, who was exiled in the Thebais, where the 
Sahidick dialect is spoken, during the period that 
the Christian church was under the dominion of the 

Veron, Ibid. 29. 'stut^v yv e'r rns zjo^oc^ aiflS, Rec, Mosc. Pro- 
cidens ad pedes ejus, Brix : but this clause is thus contracted^ 
vxiouv Hv Cant. Sahid, Procidens. Verc. lb. 35. ra i!TXf)a'n:l0[jicitl(z 
uvruv is omitted in Cant, SaJtid, Verc. though retained in Rec, 
Mosc. Brix. Ibid 17. uaTrtf h i^ny^oquui TsAiwvyj?, Rec. Mosc. si» 
cut ethnicus et pubKcanus, Brix : but this clause is thus altered, 
ar; E^vtxo; xcc) us o rthm^q. Cant. Sahid* 

^ Vid. supr. p. 48. n. 5, 

*^ Woid. Prsef. in Cod. Alexandrin. sect. II. § S3, p. vi.— 
«< In JEgypto circa Alexandriam pluriini erant librarii et calligra- 
phi, et Eusebius quinquaginta codices Constantino magno, et 
Athanasius totidern Constantino curaverat adferri.*' 

^^ Vid. supr, p, 5S. seq. 

♦' Vid. supr. p. 59. n. ""K 



t 76 ) 

Arians '^^ The active life of St. Eusebius will scarce- 
ly admit of our conceivings that he performed this 
task, at any other period, than during the time of 
bis exile. And the attachment of those hereticks 
whom he unremittingly opposed, to the edition of 
Eusebius ^'^, most probably induced him to yield to 
a natural bias in favour of the church which 
admitted him into its communion, and thus led 
him to follow the Received Text of Egypt, as revised 
by Hesychius. The affinity between the Verceli and 
Cambridge manuscripts, thus furnishes an addi- 
tional proof, that the latter is of Hesychius's edi- 
tion, which, from St. Jerome's account, must in St. 
Eusebius's age have continued in Egypt ; as it re- 
mained to the age of St. Jerome. It is indeed in- 
conceivable, that St. Eusebius, in forming his transla^ 
tion, would have followed any text, which was of 
an equivocal character, or- in less repute than that 
of Hesychius : his version consequently adds ano- 
ther and convincing testimony, to prove, that the 
Cambridge manuscript contains the text which in 
his age was current in Egypt. 

4. We possess a collation of the manuscripts of 
Egypt, made in the year 616, which establishes 
the same conclusion, almost beyond controversion. 
At that period Thomas of Heraclea, who revised the 
Syriack version, published under the auspices of 
Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug, collated that trans- 
lation with some Greek manuscripts, which he 

♦^ Vid. supr. p. B4!. n. '7. 
^* Vid. supr. p. 28. n. *^ 



( 77 ) 
found in a monastery in Egypt, and has noted their 
Tarious readings in the margin of his edition ^°. So 
extraordinary is the coincidence of these readings, 
with the peculiar readings of the Cambridge manu* 
script 5', that some criticks have been induced to 
believe it was the identical copy used in the colla- 
tion 5\ This notion is however refuted, by the in- 



'* Adler. de Versionn. Syriacc. Nov. Test. Lib. II. p. 49. ed. 
Hafn. 1789. ** Postseculum elapsum Thomas Hetaclensis no- 
vam hujus versionis [Syr. Philoxen*] editionem ciiravit Alex^ 
undrice, ad duo vel tria exempla Gra;ca castigatam, nimirum an- 
no Graecorum Dccccxxvir, h. e. Christi dcxvi. — Cum nonnul- 
lis Codicihus Greeds earn contidit ; quorum prcecipuas mrietateSf 
et passim etiam versionis siraplicis consensum vel dissensum, in 
margine editionis suce adnotavit, simulque ubi versio ambigua vel 
intellectu difficilior videbatur, verba Grceca appossuif Tliis 
information is derived from a notice, annexed to the Philox- 
enian version, by Thomas Heraclensis himself; Adler. ibid, p. 
46. " Collatus est liber iste cum duobus exemplis probatis. 
Translatus autem fuit hie liber quatuor Evangelistarum Sancto- 
rum e lingua Greeca in Syriacam cum accuratione multa et la- 
bore magno, primo quidem in urbe Mabug, in diebus Sancti 
Domini Philoxeni confessoris [et j episcopi ejus urbis. Cotlatiis 
autem postea, multa cum diligentia, a me Thoraa paupere, cum 
tribus exe^nplis Greeds, valde prohatis et correctis in Anton ia 
Alexandrice, urbis maguee, in monasterio sancto Antoniano." 
— e Cod. Biblioth. Angelic. S. August, de Urb. f. 139. 

^* Adler. ibid. p. 133. *' Quicquidsit, illudtamen extra om- 
nem dubitationem ponitur, Codices Thovice simiUimos fuisse 
C'antabrigiejisi.^* 

5* This notion is espoused by M. Wetsten. Prole gg. in Nov. 
Test. Tom. I. p. 28. but opposed by Dr. Gl, Ridley Dissert, in 
Syriac. Vers. sect. vi. p. 61. The question is debated by Dr. 
Kipling. Praef. in Cod. Cant. pp. xvi, xvli. Adler. Verss. Syri* 
acc* Nov. Test. Lib. II. p. 132. and other criticks. 



( 78 ) 
ternal evidence of the manuscript compared With 
the reading's in question ^\ From the conformity 
of those readings to the Cambridge manuscript, 
not merely in texts which are common to it with 
other manuscripts, but in texts pecuUar to itself ^\ 
we must infer its conformity to the text^ which even 
to a late period was current in Egypt. 

Now as it is absurd to conceive that the peculiar 
readings alluded to in the last three instances can 
have proceeded from the one manuscript named in 
the first ; or that they have been corrupted from 
each other ^^ : as St. Jerome has ascribed a peculiar 

'J VId. infr. n. ^K 

54 Adler. ibid. p. 132. " Itaque, inter 180 circiter varietateff, 
130*'" fere consentiunt Codices, B. C. D. L. 1. 33. 69. Urb. 2. 
Vind. 31. al. et 19'" solus D.'» Id. ibid. p. 130. " In reliquis igi- 
tur consentit criticus noster cum solo Cantabrigiensi ( Wetst. cod. 
D.) imdevigesies ; nimirum, Matt. i. 7. viii. 28. ix. 15. xv. 6. 
XX. 28. Marc. i. 3. iv.9. vii. 13. Luc. vii. 1, 41. xii. 1, 2. 
xviii. 30, 34. xx. 36. xxii. 34. Job. vi. 1. vii. 40. ix. 37. et 
accede7ite codice Vaticano sexies. Mat. i. 22. xvi. 8. xxiv. 37. 
Luc. viii. 26. x. 17. Job. xii. 34." One or two examples taken 
from St. Luke, cbap. xx. will evince, tliat tbese coincidences 
cannot be accidental. We read in Luke xx. 13. t«7ov 'i^6v%s 
ivI^ocTriio-ovlcct Mosc. Harl. * cum hu?ic viderint verebuntur,* &c. 
Brix: but J^ovJe? is omitted in Cant. Verc. and the margin of Char- 
kel. On the other hand, we read in Luke ib. 34. yawScrt >^ Uyxfjt* 
iaaovlxt Mosc, HarL *■ nubunt et traduntur ad nuptias.' Brix, 
Vidg : but this phrase is interjjolated with ysvvojylai ^ ysvvaJffi 
ya/x2cr* y.tzl yxfxcviloti, Cant. ' generayit et generantur^ nubunt 
et nubuntur.' Verc. on which Charkel observes, " in priori ex- 
emplo [Vers. Syr. Vet.] 'gignunt et gignmitur' sed in Grseco 
non est,'' Marg. Philox. 

55 The latter of the two examples quoted from Luke xx. 3 k 
supr. n, 5+. is supposed to contain a proof that the Cambridge 



( "^9 ) 
text to Hesychius, which is nowhere to be found, un- 
less it can be identified in some one of the foremen- 
tioned sources : and as in speaking of this text^ he 
deUvers himself in terms^ which accurately agree 
with the text of the Cambridge manuscript ^^ : w^e 
must from these premises infer^ that the text of 
this manuscript is virtually the same w ith that which 
St. Jerome refers to Egypt and ascribes to Hesy-. 
chius. 



Of Class II. 

That the Vatican manuscript which forms the 
exemplar of the Second Class, contains the text 
which St. Jerome refers to Palestine, and ascribes 

MS* was not used by Thoma^HeracIensis in forming his collation. 
It contains a reading, which though found in the Cambridge 
MS. that critick declares was not in the copies of the Greek 
which he collated, Vid. Ridl. ut supr. pp. 62, 63, Adler. ut 
supr. p. 132. On the other hand the collation contains read- 
ings which are not found in the manuscript, though said by the 
collatour to exist in the Greek ; these would be indeed of little 
consequence, if they were not confirmed by the coincidence of 
the old Italick version. I add an example, from the next chap- 
ter of St. Luke, to that which has been last cited. We read 
Luc. xxi. IL aYiuiToc ^£7«A« Bs-oiiy Cant. Mosc. Vat.: signa 
• magna erunt,' Cant. Brix. Vulg : but we read " et hiemes** 
Marg, Philox : and « signa magna erunt et hiemes" Verc. 
These instances will sufficiently exemplify the assertion made 
above, that the texts before us cannot be corrupted from the 
Cambridge MS. 
*^ S. Hier. Pr«f, in iv Evang. Tom, VL p^I, 



( so ) 

to Eusebius, seems to be clearly established by th^ 
following circumstances t 

1. This manuscript possesses a striking coinci- 
dence in its peculiar readings with another manu- 
script^ which is preserved in the Vatican library, 
where it is marked Urbin. 2^^^ and which, we are 
enabled^ by the internal evidence of its margin, to 
refer directly to Palestine, and to identify with the 
edition of Eusebius. At the end of the Gospels it 
contains a notice, specifying that it had been 
transcribed, and collated with antient copies, in Je- 
rusalem, which were deposited in the holy moun- 
tain ^^. As the text is thus directly allied to the text 
of Palestine, it is identified with the edition of Eu- 
sebius, in having his Canons prefixed to it, and his 
sections and references accurately noted in its mar- 
gin ^9. The affinity of the celebrated Vatican ma- 

^' Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxix. " Insignem hunc^ 
codicem, [Urbino- Vatic. 2.] quod singularem ipsius cum op- 
timis et probatissimis exemplaribus convenientiam observarem, 
bis onini diligentia et intentione contuli. Ubi enim a Recepto 
Evangeliorum textu recedit, plerumque codicibus Vaticano 
1 209, Szc. se adjungit, 

53 Id. ibid. Ad antiqulssima exemplaria exaratum esse fCod^ 
Urb.2.]testantursubscriptiones ad calcem Evangeliorum. E^aP 

uvliyf»^ci}Vf ruv \v tu ocyiu o^et ocTroKeifjisvuvy Iv rix^^^ ^v-jr^, X£<paX- 
atotg T NZ. 'Eva.fys>^iov Kxr(^Mu^y.ov £y^a,(P'^ Ik run sffTra^xtrfxivuPf h 
ri%OK a(p| xs(poc7^um^ 2AA. Eyayyj%ov xara AskoLv lyfa,(pyi ttaX 
avTE^^^fiij 0[/.oiui; Ik Tuv uvtuv uyliy^oi^av Iv r*%oK /S'vUj y.f(px>,Of.\oK 
TMB. 'Evuyyi'Kiov xxra, laxivvviv lyfci(pii} xj uv%<^^^Qr} o^om ex twm 
etvruv uvliy^oc(puv, sv r'^ot? (jfl^y xsipaXatojj ZAM. 

^9 Id. ibid. p. xxvii. '* Codex [Urb, 2.] est oetavae forma?. 



( 81 ) 
htiscript, thus traced through this manuscript to the 
oldest copies of Jerusalem^ furnishes of course a 
sufficient warrant for our referring its text to the 
edition of Eusebius^, which was pubUshed in Pales- 
tine. 

2. This deduction receives a direct confirmation 
from the vulgar translations which were current ia 
the same country from an early period. The striking 
affinity of the Urbino- Vatican manuscript to the 
three translations extant in the Syriack^ is express- 
ly asserted by Prof. Birch ; by whom that manu- 
script was twice carefully collated ^°. That existing 
between the celebrated Vatican manuscript and the 
Jerusalem-Syriack is even more striking^' ; and it is 
observed to extend to the Philoxenian version like- 
wise ^"^^ and^ by the intervention of the Vulgate, 

membranaceus, foliorum 325, et Quatuor complectitur Evan* 
gelia, quibus pnEfiguniur Canones Eusebii. Nitide et eleganter 
exaratus est. Prima cujiisque Evangelii pagina, littercB majores 
in sectionum initiiSf interpungendi signa, ut et ti'tAo* Eusebiani 
in margine Evangeliorum obvii, 

'° Id. ibid. p. xxix. " His adde consonantiam nostri [Cod. 
tJrb. 2.] cum Versione Syra Philoxenisy Syra Veteri, Hieroso* 
lymitana,** &c. 

^* Adler. ut supr. p. 201. ** Generatim igitur ad eandem Co- 
dicum Grsecorum familiam referenda est [ Vers^ ^yra Hiero'^ 
solym.'] cui libros Graecos, quibus in castiganda Versione Phi- 
loxeniana usus est Thomas, supra vindicavimus. Sed tameii 
lit exempla Thomas affinitate proximo accedent ad Cod. Can- 
tab, et ut nostra Versio cum Vaticano, omnium forte quos cetas 
tulit prcestantissimo, propinqua sit cognaiione conjtindaJ^ 

^* Birch, ut supr. p. xix. *'lnsignem Codicis nostri [Vat. 
1209.] praestantiam, ipsa varietatum coliectio huic operi in- 
eerta satis superque demonstrabit. — Mira in kctionibus quoque 

Q 



( 82 y 

fnay be ultimately traced to the old Syrlack or Pe- 
sliito ^^ On its affinity to the Philoxenian and Je- 
rusalem versions^ I rather insist^ as the former i* 
divided into sections ^"^j and has the Eusebian ca- 
nons and sections carefully inserted in some of the 
oldest copies ^^ ; and as the latter was apparently 
made in the fourth century^ when the edition of 
Eusebius was published in Palestine ^^. As it i* 
more than merely probable^ that the vulgar trans- 
lation was formed from the current edition of the 

ungularihcs convenientia cum — -Ula antiqua Versione Syra, quaft 
Seculo post C. N. sex tO, suh aiispiclis Philoxenis facta, iuse- 
quenti seculo, cura et studio Thomse Heraclensis ad Graecofr 
codices correcta et perfecta fuit." 

*3 Comp.p. 61. n. '\ p. 13. n. *'. p. 21. n. ^\ 

^4 Adler. ut supr. p. 50. '* Idem Thomas Evangelia In capi* 
tula Tel secbiones destribuit, et pericopas dtebus festis recitan- 
das conbtituit.'* 

^^ Adler. ut supr. p. 52. " PrasmittuntuT Codici [Medicea 
Florent. Vers. Philoxen.] index pericoparum diebus dominicis 
et festis in coetu sacro recitandarum, Epistola Eusehii ad Car^ 
fiamimy ct talmlce decern Canonnm harmonicorum Eusebii et Arti" 
inonii. — Margini Evaageliorum prcetcr tit ulos pericoparum do7m-> 
nicalium, minio scriptos, et argumenta capitum vel Kt(paXai6)v 
•atramento exarata, adscripti quoque sunt minio mmieri Ammo" 
niani pericoparum, et suh szngtdis indicatur tabula ad quam illud 
capitulum referendum sitP 

*^ Id. ibid. p. 201. " Sed tamen, cum eandem dialectum re*' 
periemus in Hierosolymitano, qui ex plurimorum, ni fallimur^ 
eruditorum consensu, circa succidum quartum absolutus fuit, 
(libris enim Cabbalisticis Baher et Zohar immerito tarn reniota 
sintiquitas a Juda^is tribuitur :) non impedit, quo minus inter' 
'pretationem iiodram eodemi circiter tempore^ vel saltern i?itra, 
fuartum et sextum sceculum Hierosolymis editam fidsse staiue^e: 
kndeamus,-' 



( 83 ) 

country ; the affinity which the Vatican manuscript 
possesses to that translation contains a very con- 
vincing proof, that it possesses the text of Eusebius 
and of Palestine ^\ 

8. The striking coincidence of the Greek of the 
Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate ^* 
leads to the establishment of the same conclusion. 
This version received the corrections of St. Jerome 
during his abode in Palestine ^^ ; it is thus only pro- 
bable that the Greek copies,, after which he mo- 
delled it, were those, which from being current 
in Palestine, were used in the monastery, 
into which he had retired : but these he as- 
sures us were of the edition of Eusebius7°. For 
this edition he had imbibed an early partiality, 
through Gregory of Nazianzum, who first put the 
Scriptures into his hands 7', who had been educated 

^7 It is thus probable that this MS. preserves this text even 
in a purer state than the Urbino- Vatican MS. The latter hav- 
ing been collated with more copies than one, thus adopted their 
respective peculiarities: and as the transcriber was evidently 
not a native of Jerusalem, but an inhabitant of some region 
situated more westerly, he adhered to the text which prevailed 
in his native country. We may thus naturally account for the 
approximation of this MS. to the Byzantine text, where it de- 
viates from the Palestine. 

^^ Vid. supr. p. 61. n. ". 

^'^ Vid. S. Hier. ad Lucin. Ep. xxvlii. Tom. I. pp. 82, 83. Id, 
adv. Ruffin. Lib. III. cap. vii. Tom. II. p. 257. 

7° Vid. supr. p. 72. n. '\ 

''S.Hieron. Scriptt. Eccless. Catal. Tom. I. p. 131. " Gre- 
gorius, primum Sasimorum deinde Nazianzenus Episcopus, vir 
cloquentissimus prceceptor meus^ quo Scripiuras explanante di* 
dkV* 

^2 



(■ 84 ) 
ii Caesarea in Palestine ^^ with Euzoius, wlio had 
been at considerable pains with Acacius^ to restore 
the decayed library of Pamphilus and Eusebius in 
that city ^'. With this hbrary St. Jerome was cer- 
tainly acquainted,, having found the Gospel of the 
Hebrews in it^ which he afterwards turned into La- 
tin '^*. He has besides avowed his predilection for 
Eusebius's edition^ in revising that part of the 
Scripture Canon which contains the Old Testament ; 
having expressly followed Origen's revisal of the 
Septuagint ^^^ which^ as he informs us^ was incor- 

7* Id. ibid. p. 131. " Euzokis apud Thespesium rhetorera, cimi 
Gregorio Nazianzeno episcopo, adolescens Ccesarece eruditus 
est : et ejusdem postea urbis episcopus, plurimo labore corrup- 
tam bibliothecam Origenis et Pmnphili in memhranis instaurare 
conatus est,"" &c. 

73 Id. ad. Marcel. Ep. cxli. Tom. III. p. 398. " Beatus 
Pamphilus — cum Demetrium Phalareum et Pisistratum in sa- 
crae bibliothecam studio vellet sequare — Origenis libfos impetislus 
persecutus, Caesariensi Ecclesiae dedicavit : quam ex parte cor- 
ruptam, Acacius dehinc et Euzoius, ejusdem Ecclesiae sacer- 
dotes, in membl'anis instaurare conati simt." 

^+ Zaccagn. Col. Monumm. Vet. Eccl. Praef. p. Ixv. § 54. 
ed. Rom. 1(398. *' Etenim magno in pretio semper fuere Cae- 
sariensis Bibliothecae codices, utpote ab Origine primum, deinde 
a Pamphilo Martyre, ac demum ab Eusebio Cacsariensi, viris 
doctissimis congesti fuerant. Sanctum enim Hierony^num iis- 
deni codicibus tcsmn Jliisse argumento est, quod Nazarenorum 
Evangelium in Bibliotheca Ceesariensi se reperisse testatur." 
Conf. S. Hier. Scriptt. Eccl. in Matt. Tom. I. p. 120. Comment, 
in Matt. Tom. VI. p. 21. b. 

^5 S. Hier. Sun. et Fretel. Ep. cxxxv. Tom. III. p. 377.— 
*' Septuaginta interpretum [editio] guee in E^a<n7^ois codicibus^ 
roperitu.r. — a nobis in Latiuum sermon em Jidelitcr versa est, eft 
Hierosolynicc atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur,'* &c. 



( 85 ) 
porated in the edition published by Eusebius ''^. 
And he has clearly evinced his acquaintance with 
the same edition^ in revising that part of the Canon 
which contains the New Testament, by adopting 
Eusebius's sections in dividing the text of the Vul- 
gate, and prefixing his canons to that version, to- 
gether with the epistle addressed to Carpianus"^ 
These considerations, added to the known respect 
which St. Jerome possessed for Eusebius's critical 
talents ^^^ fully warrant our adding the testimony of 
the Vulgate to that of the Syriack version ; as prov- 
ing, that the Vatican manuscript, which harmonizes 
with those translations, contains the text, which in 
St. Jerome's age was current in Palestine. 

4. We possess in the present instance, not less 
than the preceding, a collation of texts, expressly 
made with the edition of Eusebius, about the year 
458 "^9^ which decisively establishes the same con- 
clusion. Euthalius, who at that period divided the 
Acts and Catholick Epistles into sections, as Euse- 

f^ Id. ibid. conf. ut supr. p. 72. n. ". 

^' Id. Praef. in iv. Evangell. Tom. VI. p. i. '' Canones quoque, 
quos Eusebius Ccesariensis Episcopus, Alexandrinum secutus 
Ammonium, in decern numeros ordinavit, sicut in Grceco haben- 
tur, expressimus.'" Vid. supr. p. 32. n. ^^, 

78 Id. Apol. adv. Ruffin. Lib. I. cap. ii. Tom. II. p. 234<. Prajf. 
in Jos. Tom. III. p. 3il. Epist. ad Sun. et Fretel. Tom. III. p. 
377. 

7" Zaccagn. ubi supr. p. 402. Floruit enim Euthalius — An- 
no ccccLviii quo Pauli Epistolas versibus distinxit, vixitque 
ultra annum ccccxc, cum lucubrationes suas Athanasio juniori, 
Alexandrino Episcopo dicaverit, qui eo anno sacris infulis die- 
coratus fuit.'* 



( 86 ) 
bius iad divided the Gospels ^°, expressly collated 
his edition with correct copies of Eusebius's edition^ 
preserved in the library of Caesarea in Palestine^'. 
Of the peculiar i^eadings of this edition an accurate 
list has been published, from a collation of manu- 
scripts preserv^ed in Italy ^^. But so extraordinary 
is the affinity which they possess to the readings of 
the Vatican manuscript ^^^ that some criticks have not 

*° Euthal. Ed. Actt. Apostt. in Prooem. p. 409. ed. Zaccagn. 
8' Id. Ed. Catholl. Epistt. p. 513. ed. Zaccagn. 'A.laCx^S*? ^s 

Vuv U^oc^ecjv )^ Kcc^oT^iy.ay 'ETriroAwf iStCxiei/ i!7po<; rex, om^nQy) uvliypa^oi 
*2? iv Kcnaccpzix /SiC^to&ijx*;? 'EvcrsQia t5 na/zip'i^tf. Id. SubsCf. 

Epistt. Paul, e Cod. Coisl. 202. ailaf^A^Oo, ^l h jStC^o? -cr^ro; to t» 
y^oncratpiia, oi.vliy(x(pov rij? ^iCAtoGijjtijg tS ayts ria/xtpi^a* %«p* yeypa/x- 
l^evov avre. 

** Zaccagn. ubi supr. pp. 402, 403. n, 

*^ This affinity is pointed out by Zaccagni, ubi supr. p. 443. 
6eq. who specifies the concurrence also of the Alexandrine 
MS. which harmonizes in the Acts and Catholick Epistles with 
the Vatican MS. Vid. supr. p. 61 n. 33. Zaccagn. Adm. ad 
Varr. Lectt. Euthal. p. 441. "Deinde varias Regio-Alexandrini 
Codicis lectiones contulimus cum aliis modo memorati Alexari' 
drini Codicis variis lectionibus, quae in Anglicanis Bibliis Poly- 
glottis sacro textui subjiciuntur, et ubi cum Regio-Alexandrino 
in omnibus conveniunt indicavimus," &c. I shall subjoin a spe- 
cimen of the coincidence of the text of Euthalius and the Vati- 
can MS. in readings which differ from the Received l ext : taken 
from the two first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, Acts i. 
14. xj lAapix Rec. >..») Mapia/A. Euth. Vat, ib. 19. A)ieh^u[jt,u Rec, 
Ay.i'h^a.^A.ax* Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 24-. arvu^ei^oy reluv raiv ^vo hoc 
9V i^eXs^o} XcchtTv. Rec, oivd^et^ov ov i^iAi^u in -[iilm tuv Ko tya ha,-' 

Cerv. Euth. Vat. Alex. ii. 6. on ny.-dty Rec. on '-ny.aaiv Euth. Vat* 



( ST ) 
scrupled to assert, that this manuscript has been in- 
terpolated with the pecuhar readings of Euthahus's 
copies ^t The coincidences existing between them 
admit of a more simple and certain solution, by 
considering- Eusebius's text, to which they are re- 
spect^rely allied, as the common source of the re- 
semblance. The affinity between Euthalius's read- 
ings and the Vatican manuscript consequently forms 
an additional proof, that the latter contains the text 
of Eusebius, as it was preserved in Euthalius's age, 
in the library of Csssarea in Palestine. 

Now as it is wholly inconceivable, that the coin- 
cidences observable between those diiTerent texts, 
translations and copies can be the effect of accident, 
or of intentional alteration : as St. Jerome has 
ascribed a peculiar text to Palestine, which can be 
found .no where, if it is not identified in the manu- 
scripts and translations of that country : and as the 
text of the Vatican manuscript, in tlie opinion of no 
ordinary judge, is of that kind which renders it par- 

ib. 13. ;>cXHt;^^..l£?. Rec, ^,o^x>^svA^oP,s; Eiitli. Vat. Alex. ib. 14. 
II/Tpoj. Rec. uhpog Euth. Alex. ib. 17. hiTrr.u, Rec. hv^rAo^i 

Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 22. ^a^^. y,o<.) avro\. Rec. xa^^, airo\ Euth 

Vat. Alex.ib. 27. p. Rec. pr>u EutL Vat. ib. 38. uf^ccpn^yRec, 
rm ui^ufl,:;, ^Ci^uv Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 40. axpo.K^Xei },iym Rec. 
«rpo£K«,\« airh^ ■KiymEuth, Vat. Alex. ib. 43. lyivd,, ri 'maar, -i^vx^ 
<poQo^. Rec. iyiydo h hfecraX-^i^- (piQo<; T£ h ^iyoi,<; Itt) 'Ofui^u; cclrii 

Euth. Alex. 

'* Wetsten. Prolegg. in Nov. Test. p. 11. <^ 3. « lUud etiam 
observe, verosimile videri Codicis nostri [Alexandr.] scripto- 
rem opera Eiithalii usum fuisse— quin et lectiones Euthalii (qua- 
les L. A. Zaccagnius edidit) scrpissime seaituin fuisse.*' Conf. p. 
26. utsupr. p. 61.n. ''\ 



( ss ) 

ticularly worthy of Eusebius ^^ : we may hence 
certainly conclude that the manuscript, in which 
all these characteristick marks are combined, con* 
tains the text which St. Jerome traces to Palestine^ 
and ascribes to Eusebius, 



Of Class III, 

That the Moscow and Harleian manuscripts, 
which form the exemplars of the Third Class, con- 
tain the text which St. Jerome attributes to Luci- 
anus, and refers to Constantinople, is sufficiently 
established by the following considerations. 

1. It is no where disputed that those manuscripts 
contain the text, which uniformly exists in the ma- 
nuscripts brought from Constantinople. These 
manuscripts, which far exceed in number those 
containing the Egyptian and Palestine text, con- 
tain the Vulgar Greek, which constitutes the Re- 
ceived Text, and exists in our printed editions. 
Such however were the characteristick marks of the 
Byzantine edition in the age of St. Jerome : in 
that age, a Lucianus, (as the copies of the edition 
revised by that learned person were termed) con- 
tained the Greek Vulgate ^^ and possessed the text 

25 Vid. Dr. Bentl. Lett. p. 233. 

«<5 S. Hier. Sun. ct Fretel. Ep. cxxxv. Tom. III. p. 377.— 
" breviter illud admoneo, ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem quam 
Origines et Csesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores 
Kon'^v id est communem appellant atque Vulgatam^ et a pierisque 



( 89 ) 
which was current at Constantinople ^^ As the pri- 
ority of the text of our printed editions to that 
age is evinced by the coincidence which it pos- 
sesses with the old liahck version^^ ; the circum- 
stance of this text bein^ still the Greek Vulgate, 
and still found at Constantinople, very decidedly 
proves, that it is identical with that which St. Je- 
rome ascribes to the same region, and assig-ns to Lu- 
cianus. 

2. The text of the manuscripts which contain the 
Byzantine edition, is observed to differ materially 
from the oriental versions ^9 ; which involves an ar- 
gument, though one it must be confessed, that 
is merely negative, which corroborates the same 
conclusion. The whole of the texts jn St. Jerome's 
age were reducible to three 9°. Two of them are re- 
ferred to Egypt and Palestine, and are easily iden- 
tified, by their coincidence with the vulgar transla- 
tions, which still exist in these regions. The third 

nunc Aaxiavo? dicitiir ; aliam Septaaglnta Interpretum, quae et 
in lix-TrXoTq codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sarmonejii 
fideliter versa est, et Hierosolymae atcjue in Orientis ecclesiis 
decantatur." 

87 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ^\ 

»2 Vid. supr. p. 70. 

^' Adler. de Verss. Syrr. p. 132, **Itaque inter ISO circiter 
varietates, 130 •'-'^ fere consentiunt codices B. C. D. L. 1. 33. 
69. Urb. 2. Vind. 31. al. et undevigesies so^us D. E quo nrani- 
festepatet Codices Tlioma? [Heraciensis] a recsnsioiie Constan- 
iinopoUtana, quam exhibent plarimi Codices Mosqueiises^ longis- 
shne abesscy" &c. Conf. ut supr. p. 55. n. ". p. 74. n.'^^ p. Si. 

90 Vid. supr. p. ,72, n.^^ 



( 90 ) 

Is assigned to Constantinople^ where no language 
but Greek was vernacular. Consequently, as this 
text differs from those versions, and cannot of 
course be ascribed to Egypt or Palestine; we are 
left no alternative but to ascribe it to Constantino- 
ple, which directly identiiies it with tlie text revised 
by Lucianus. 

3. The striking coincidence observed to exist be- 
tween the text of the Moscow and Harleian manu- 
scripts, and that of the Brescia manuscript, con- 
tains a further proof of the same conclusion. There 
seems to be no alternative left us, but to conclude^ 
that the latter contains a version, which had been 
made from the text revised by Lucianus ; or that it 
has been corrected by the Byzantine text, since the 
time of St. Jerome. The latter is a supposition^ 
however, which must be clearly set out of the case. 
The orthographical peculiarities of the text of this 
manuscript prove it at least antecedent to the age of 
Cassiodorus, It possesses the errours ^^ which exist- 
ed in the copies that preceded his times, and which 
he undertook to remove from the text of Scripture ^^ ; 

^' Garbel. Descrip. Cod. Brix. ap. Blanchin. Prolegg, p. 6. 

•* Nihil autem frequentius in Codice isto quam litterarum per- 

. mutatio : O pro V, T pro D, sed pr^ cseteris B pro V, et vice 

versa usurpatis. Aliquando etiam Y pro Y, et e contra sed 

parce usurpatum inveni." 

'■'^ Cassiod. de Inst. Div. Lit. cap. xv. " Nunc dicimus in 
quibus litteris sunt librariorum vitia corrigenda. — B. pro V, V 
pro B, O pro V, N pro M, contra orthographiae pr^cepta vi- 
tiose positas non relinquas. — Sed in his emendatorum codicum 
servetur exemplura. — Quod pronomen est, per D litteram naw 
per T scribenduin est*" 



( 91 ) 
and it differs in its peculiar reading's from the Vul- 
gate ^^ which, from the same age, wholly superseded 
the old Italick translation ^+. The strongfest ne^rative 
argument may be im^ed, from the circumstance of its 
thus differing from the Latin translation, that it is to- 
tally free from alteration. But as strong a positive 
argument may be urged, from its coinciding with the 
Byzantine text, that it is equally free from antece- 
dent correction. If we must admit, that the text of 
this manuscript has undergone alterations, it must 
be granted, that it is as much a new translation as 
the Vulgate ; as it differs as much from that transla- 
tion as the Byzantine text from the Palestine ^^ Nor 
is it to be disputed that it possesses that literal close- 
ness to the original Greek ^^ wliich, we are as- 
sured, was characteristick of the old Italick trans- 
lation 97. This character of literal fidelity seems to 
place out of dispute the possibility of its having been 
corrected since the age of the elder Eusebius. Iii 
the period intervening between his times and those 
of St. Jerome, the western world seems not to have 
possessed a person wlio was capable of formin*'- 
such a translation ^^ It is unnecessary to except 
here those learned persons who have been specified 
on a former occasion 95; as they ^vere attached to a 

^^ Vid. supr. p. 63, seq. 

5* Vid. supr. p. 16. n. =9. p. 33. n. ^9, 

^5 Conf. supr. pp. 68, 69, 70. 

9^ Vid. supr. pp. 63, 64, 65, 

97 Vid. supr. p. 57. n. ". 

9^ Vid. supr. p. 57. n. ""'. 

99 Vid. supr. p. 54-. n. ''^ 



( «2 ) 
different text from that contained in the common 
edition '°'. li' the text '°' of the Brescia niaiiuscript 
has been altered, it must have been consequently 
corrected previously to t!ie a<^-e of Eusebius '°\ 

*°^ Vid. sapr. p. 54. n. ''^ 

'°' This expression xiaust be strictly taken, as applied to the 
whole body oi" the text; for the Brescia manuscript has suffered 
some mutilations. It thus wants Lulie xxii. 4<3, 44. Joh. v. 4. 
viii. i— 11. vid. Garbel. ap. Blanchin. Prolegg. pp. 19, 22, 23. 
"NVe must evidently ascribe these corrections to the influence ot 
*• the rectified copies" which are mentioned by St. Epiphanius, 
vid. infr. p, 93. n. ^^\ and which prevailed towards the close of 
the fourth century. But while these corrections clearly support 
the claims of the text to an antiquity as remote as this period, 
they do not affect the arguments by which it may be proved to 
be more antient ; since it evidently required no reference to the 
Greek to make those omissions, nor more than a knowledge of 
the fact, that they were made in the rectified copies. And 
this information might be attained without having ever seen one 
of those copies, by merely looking into the fathers ; vid. Hi- 
lar, de Trin. Lib. X. § 41. August, de Adultt. Conjugg. Lib. IL 
cap. vii. It is, on the contrary, evident, that between the pe» 
riod which is thus ascribed to this MS., and the times of Euse^ 
bius, the western v/orld possessed no person who was ade- 
quate to make so faithful a translation. Hence the conclusion 
ofGarbelius, who antedates the text of this yiS. at least to 
the age of St. Jerome, seems to be undeniable ; Discr. Cod. 
Brix. ubi supr. p. 10. *' Exemplar autem hoc nostrum ex an- 
tigraphis illis maniisse, quae non solum Hieronymi tempora, sed 
Hilarii Pictaviensis praecesserant, cum facies ipsa, turn loci ali- 
quot quos postea excutiemus, manifestissime eviucunt." Yid^ 
infr. p. 93. n. ''\ supr. p. 37. n. ^5. 

"^" I take no account of some more modern corrections which 
have been made in the text of this MS. from the Vulgate of St. 
Jerome, as they are easily distinguished from the original writ- 
ing, by means of the dilferent Ijc^uid in which they are cxs* 



( 93 ) 
And as it was manifestly formed by the Byzan^- 
tine text^ it consequently evinces the priority of 
that text to the Palestine, which was formed by Eu- 
sebius. As it thus proves, that, at this early period, 
this text existed, which prevails at Constantinople ; it 
clearly identifies it with that which is referred by St. 
Jerome to the same place and period, and ascribed 
by him to Lucianus. 

4. This deduction is further confirmed by the 
positive testimony of St. Epiphanius. In reasonings 
on a particular passage of Scripture, he distin- 
guishes two species of text ; one of which was rec- 
tified, and the other left unrectified, by the ortho- 
dox : and he represents the copies of the former, 
as those which omitted the passage in question '°^ 

cutcd ; the former being written in ink, the latter executed in 
a silver pigment. Garbel. ibid.p. 10. " Quod vero Codicibus 
dim accidere solebat, nempe ab iraperitis criticis ut perperam 
corrigerentur, huic quoque nostro in pluribus contigit. Kon 
equldem qtiod corrector ille, quicumqiie is demum fuerit, aut 
adjecerit aliquid, aut immutaverit. Sed abrasij, qusc vltiosa 
censebat, ut recta non semel pervertit, sic mendosa supinus 
praeteriit. Suj^ersunt enim iibiqiie Utterarimi vestigia, unde na- 
troam scripturam deprehendamus," 

*°^ S. Epiphan. Ancor. § xxxi. Tom. II. p. SG. b. 'AXXa yaX. 

K-^BlKovIo TO pv!^io!/y (pQ^'ijhE'Pizqf ««i lU'/y vor^caile^ airn to r/Xc?, y.cn to 
tCTYi-'polaloK,) " }ia.i ysiCfJi.Bvo^ Iv ayuv'ia Id^cca, y.at i/Uf'tO o ^o^i-j^ avrS 
wq ^^ouQoi u'i[A.ctlc^ yiai u(pBri"AfyB?>oS hi<^yym uvIop.'' These last 

words are quoted from Luke xxji. 43, 44. Conf. S. Hilar, de 
Trinit. Lib. X. J 4L p. 1062. a.. Non sane ignorandum a nobi» 



( 51 ) 

Of the two species of text which were published at 
Constantinople^ by Liicianus and Eusebius '°*^ that 
revised by the latter certainly retained the passage : 
for it is expressly referred to in his canons '"^^ and is 
retained in tlie Vulgate^ which was formed after the 
text of his revisal '°^. The edition of Eusebius con- 
sequently differed from the corrected copies of 
the ortiiodox, published in the days of St. Je- 
rome and St. Epiphanius. But this passag-e is 
wanting in the Alexandrine manuscript^ as well as 
in the Latin translation, which accords with it, and 
v/hich is preserved in tlie Brescia manuscript. The 
text of these manuscripts is thus clearly identified 
with that which isad received the corrections of the 
orthodox revisers ; and as they possess the Byzan- 
tine text, their joint testimony consequently proves 

est, et ill Gnccis et in Latinis codiclhus complurimisy vel de ad- 
veiHcnte angelo, vel de sudore saiigulneo, nil scriptum reperiri. 

^"^ Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37. p. 26. n. '^^ 

^°' It is thus marked in the margin of the Harleian MS. 
jjnd in that of the Cambridge MS. 'LUT ; and in the margin 
of the Verona MS. ccLxxxiii X : tliis being the proper refe- 
rence to Eusebius's Canon x, which consequently contain^ 
ISo. 2S3, referring to Luke xxii. 4-3, 41, 

*^^ It is consequently marked in the margin of the manuscript 
and printed copies of tiie Vulgate, 283 X: and set against the 
follo'.ving words: " Apparuit auteni illi Angelas de ccelo, con- 
fortians earn, l^t factus in agonia prolixius orabat. Et factus 
est sudor ejus sicut guttse sanguinis decurrentis in terram.'* 
These words are also found in the Verceli and Verona MSS., 
winch contain the old Italick version : both, however, read 
*' sudor iliius quasi guttae ;" the former also reads " decurren- 
tis super terram," while tlie latter read* *' decurrente^ in 
terra*" 



( 95 J 
jthe antiquity of that text to be as remote as the times 
of St. Epiphanius '"^ ; and of consequence evinces its 
identity with tliat text, which St. Jerome, who lived 
in the same age, assigns to Constantinople, and 
ascribes to Lucianus. 

Now, as the text preserved in the Harleian and 
Moscow manuscripts is that which exists in the ma- 
nuscripts, which are brought from Constantinople ; 
Gs it differs from the text of the Oriental transla* 
tions, and therefore cannot bjg assigned to Egypt or 
Palestine ; as it harmonizes with the text of the La- 
tin translation preserved in the Brescia MS., which 
preceded the times of Cassiodorus and Jerome ; and 
as it corresponds with the state of the Byzantine 
text, as described in the writings of St. Epipha- 
nius ; we may from these premises summarily con- 
clude, that it is identical with the text which St, 
Jerome attributes to Lucianus, and assigns to Con- 
stantinople. 

If the proofs which have be6n thus adduced at 
length are not deemed adequate to evince the iden- 

*°^ It is necessary to explain here, tW St. Epiphanius was 
the acquaintance of St. Jerome, amd bishop of a see under the 
Patriarch of Conslantinojile. As he hved when St. Jerome's 
three classes of text existed, and speaks in general terms of one, 
he must be supposed to mean that which prevailed in the region 
where he lived. He has, however, placed this matter beyond 
mere conjecture, in referring to Joh. i. 28. Hair. li. p. 435. a. 
He quotes h ^s^cc^u^a. as the reading of his own copy ; Ir /3e- 
Sayia, as the reading of "other copies." The former is found 
in the Byzantine text ; the latter in the Palestine ; the former 
€VKsequently contained the text of St. Epiphanius, 



( 9<5 ) 
fity 6f the different classes of text which are still 
preserved in the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow 
manuscripts, with those which formerly existed in 
the editions of Egypt, Palestine, and Constantino- 
J)le ; it is difficult even to conceive what mode of 
proof will be deemed adequate to that purpose. In 
every instance where that coincidence, which is alone 
calculated to prove such an identity, could be ex- 
pected, it has been sought, and found to exist. It 
lias been traced in the manuscripts and vulgar 
translations prevalent in those countries ; and in the 
collations of texts and occasional versions which 
were made from those manuscripts and translations. 
And as this mode of proof is most full ; so it appears 
to be most satisfactory. That the different texts of 
St. Jerome's age, and of the present times, should 
amount exactly to three, must surely convey no 
slight presumption in favour of their identity. But 
when, through the medium of the old Italick version, 
(which corresponded with some of the copies of the 
former period, and which corresponds with those of 
tlie present,) those extremes, however remote, are 
directly connected ; the mode of proof which 
evinces the identity of the text which existed at 
botli periods, must be allowed to carry the force of 
dcmoustnition. 

Independently even of tlie laboured proof by 
which I have endeavoured to establish this conclu- 
sion, nothing appears to be more probable, thaa 
tliat we should possess copies of the different texts, 
which existed in the age of St. Jerome. The 
manner in which all manuscripts, that have de* 



{ 9t ) 

Icended to us^ have been preserved, would of itself 
render this point more than probable. It is how- 
ever a matter^ not merely of probability, but of 
fact, that at least one copy and one version has 
been prese«*ved for that period ; for, the Vulgate 
and Alexandrine manuscript are both assigned to 
the era of Jerome '°^ Even the latest of those 
manuscripts which contain the exemplars of our dif- 
ferent classes of text is not ascribed to a period less 
remote than the eighth century ; for this is the date 
assigned to the Moscow manuscript, which con- 
tains the Byzantine text^°9. the Vatican manu- 
script, which contadns the Palestine text, lays claim 
to much greater antiquity. As those manuscripts 
have thus certainly existed for ten centuries, it is 
not to be disputed, that those from which they were 
copied might have existed for the remaining four, 
which intervene to the times of St. Jerome. And if 
this reasoning evince the permanence of the Byzan- 
tine text, it must, by parity of reasoning, evince 
that of the Palestine and the Egyptian. 

When we weigh this probability against the only 
possibility which the question appears to admit, the 
result must clearly evince the exclusive stability of 
the grounds pn which we have proceeded, in arriv- 
ing at the present conclusion. If it is denied that 
those three texts have descended to us, from the 

'«8 Woid. Prolegg.iB Cod. Alex. p. xvii. § 56, " Scriptusest 
itaque Codex Alexandrinus antequam vir doctus teste Euthalio, 
anno S96, in sectiones Epistolas diviserat^" Carif; supr.p. 70, 

"» Vid. supr. p. 62. n. -\ 



( 98 ) 

times df St. Jerome ; it must be granted that one 
or more of them has been formed since the age of 
that father. But taking up the question^ as re- 
duced to this alternative, can there be a shadow of 
doubt,, that the latter is a supposition, not merely 
less probable in itself, but involved in difficulties 
which are wholly inexplicable ? For what supposi- 
tion can be more irreconcilable to probability, than 
that which implies, that the Latin translation, after 
having undergone such a change, should ultimately 
acquire the characteristick peculiarities of the dif- 
ferent versions which existed in the age of St. Je- 
rome ? I will not insist at present on this circum- 
stance, that some of those characteristick marks 
Consist in a resemblance to the oriental versions ""^ ; 
which implies, that those who created it in the Greek 
possessed an acquaintance with the eastern lan- 
guages, which certainly was not possessed by the 
most learned of the christian fathers. But the bare 
fact, that one of those versions which is contained 
in the Brescia manuscript agrees both with the 
Greek and Latin copies of St. Jerome's age '", in 
omitting at least two remarkable passages, which 
are nevertheless still found in the Greek and Latin 
Vulgate "* which have generally, if not exclusively, 
prevailed from that time to the present day^^^, seems 
to place beyond all reasonable doubt, that this version 
claims an aUiance to the text of the former period, in- 

"*Vkl.supr. pp. 74,81. 

'" Vid. supr. p. 37. n. ''\ p. 93. n. '""^ Conf. p. 92. n. '°^ 
*" Vid. supr. p. 94. n. ' \ 

"^ Vid. supr. p. 32. n. ". Conf. Simon, Nouy. Obs, sur le 
TexUetlesVere.p. 145. 



( 99 ) 

stead of the latter. Nor is it to be disputed that we still 
retain two of the texts which in St. Jerome's age ex^ 
isted in the Greek Septuagint ; however it may be 
denied that we possess those, which at the same 
period existed in the Greek Testament. For the 
Vatican manuscript possesses the text which Eu- 
sebius published from Origen ; as unquestionably 
appears from its coincidence with the remains of 
the Hexapla "*, and the Vulgate of Jerome "^ 
And the Alexandrine manuscript,, as possessing a 
different version^ must preserve the revisal of He* 
sychius or Lucianus ; most probably that of the for- 
mer, as it was originally brought from Alexan- 
andria "^. From this matter of fact, we may surely 
conclude, that, as the copies of the New Testa-^ 
ment were infinitely more numerous than those of 
the Old, the three classes of text which are pre- 
served in the former are not less antient than those 
which are preserved in the latter : and consequently 
must be referred to the age of St. Jerome. 

In the course of the above reasoning I have con- 
sidered St. Jerome's testimony, on the existence of 
three classes of text "^^ as extending to the New 
Testament, though it is strictly applicable to the 
Septuagint. Whether his declaration may be taken 
in this latitude, or not, is of little importance to the 
foregoing conclusions ; as all that I have endeavour-^ 
ed to prove has been established, independent of 

*'* Vid. Blanchin. Evang. Quadr. P. I. f. cdxciii. cdxcvii. 
"* Id. ibid. f. cdxciii. 

"« Negot. of Sijr T. Roe. f. 414. 460. 618, Conf. supr, p. 7^ 
n. 37. 

"7Vid.supr. p. 72.Bi.J7, 

H 2 



( 100 ) 

his testimony. The reader will easily perceiv«, 
that the existence of three classes of text in St. Je- 
rome's age has been proved from the coincidence 
of the Greek with the Latin translations which ex- 
isted in the a^e of that father "^ ; and the identity 
of those classes with the three editions which I con- 
ceive to be his, has been proved from the affinity 
which they possess to the oriental translations**^. 
But even independent of this circumstance^ a suffi- 
cient warrant may be founds in his own authority, 
for taking his testimony, in the more enlarged sense, 
and applying it to the Old and New Testament. It 
was obviously not his intention to limit his declara- 
tion to the latter ; that he speaks only of it is mani- 
festly to be imputed to his having been exclusively 
engaged on the subject of the Septuagint. Of con- 
sequence, when he speaks of the New Testament, 
he explicitly admits that it was revised by HesychiuS 
and Lucianus "**. That it had been revised by Eu- 
sebius is not to be denied '" ; and St. Jerome has 
professed himself acquainted with his edition '*% 
While this learned father has likewise made a simi- 
lar declaration, with respect to the editions of Hesy- 

"8 Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 

"9 Vid. supr. pp. 74. 81. 

"° S. Hier. Praef. in iv Evangg. p. i. ^ Praetermitto eos co' 
dices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum homi- 
num asserit perversa contentio: quibics utique nee in toto Ve- 
teri Instrumento emendare quid licuit, nee in Novo prqfuit 
emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante tran- 
slata doceat falsa esse qu(E addita sunt,'* 
- ^" Vid. supr, p. 26. n. '*♦. p. 34. n. ^\ - ' 

*** Vid. supr. p, 85, lu 77. ' 



( 101 ) 

chius and Luclanus ; he clearly intimates that they 
were in use in his days ; and expressly declares, that 
they had their respective admirers "^ Now, it is 
obvious, that the same causes vs^hich recommended 
any part of these different editions in any particular 
church, must have tended to recommend the re- 
mainder. St. Jerome has, however, informed us, 
respecting the Septuagint, that the different editions 
of it, as revised by Hesychius, Lucianus, and Euse- 
bius, prevailed not merely in particular churches, 
but in different regions ***; we must of course form 
-a similar conclusion respecting- the New Testaments 
which had equally undergone their revisal. As the 
whole bible was received in all churches, and differ- 
ent countries adopted different editions ; nothing 
can be more improbable, than that their copies of 
it could have been composed of a mixed text ; or 
that the region which adopted one part of the Canon 
from Hesychius, would take another from Lucianus. 
We are indeed informed by St. Jerome, that the 
pertinacity with which the different churches ad- 
hered to the ancient and received text, was almost 
invincible '*^ ; and in his Preface to the Latin Vul- 

"» Vid.supr. p. 100. n. '^^ 

•** Vid. supr. p. 72. n. J7. 

'" Such is the constant complaint of St. Jerome in his Pre- 
faces; vid. Praef. in Pentateuch. Tom. III. p. 341. Praef. in 
Jos. lb. p. 341. Pr«f. in Paralipomra. lb. p. 343. Praef. 
in Esdr. lb. p. 344, &c. Hence St. Jerome dehvcrs the foK 
lowing injunction to his friends; Ibid. p. 344. " Accedunt ad 
hoc invidorum studin; qui omne, c^\xoiiscT\hvmviS,r€prche7idendmn 
putant ; et interdujn, contra se conscienria repugnante, publice 
lacerantff^mdi, occulte legunt. — Itaque obsepro vos Domnioa -et 



( 103 ) 

gate^ he has declared^ that the effects of this lauda- 
ble prejudice against innovation were really experi- 
enced^ with respect to the editions of Hesychius and 
Lucianus : though the copies edited by these learn- 
ed persons had every thing to contend with^ from 
the rivalry of later editions^ which had been pub- 
lished by Eusebius, Athanasius^ and other orthodox 
revisers. This declaration of St. Jerome^ and the 
reflexion which he deemed necessary to cast on the 
editions of Hesychius and Lucianus '*^ contain a 
sufficient proof, that the copies of those editions were 
generally prevalent in his age. In fact, a minute 
examination of the text of the Vulgate, which he 
published, enables us to determine, that, in forming 
that traaslation, he made use of versions formed from 
the editions of Lucianus and Hesychius. The proof 
of this last point I shall hereafter give in detail, as it 
contains the strongest confirmation of the main con- 
clusion, which it is my object to establish, that the 
three classes of text, which exist in the present age, 
existed in the age of St. Jerome. The bare />re- 
valence of those editions till the latter period, in- 
volves a proof, that they could have only obtained 
171 Egypt, in Palestine, and Constantinople ; since, 
solely and respectively, over those regions extended 
the influence of Hesychius, Eusebius, and Luci- 
anus 



1*7 



Rogati'ane carissimi, ut privata lectione content!, llbros non 
efFeratis in publicum ; nee fastidiosis cibos ingeratis : — Si qui 
autem fratrum sunt, quibus nostra non displicent, his tribu- 
atis exemplar," &c. vid. infr. p. 119. n. ^^ 

"*^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. '*^. 

^'^ Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ^■. 



H 103 ) 

I shall now beg leave to assume, as proved, that 
the three classes of text which exists in the Cam- 
bridge, Vatican, and Moscow manuscripts, are iden- 
tical with the three editions of Hesychius, Eusebius, 
and Lucianus, which existed in the age of St. Je- 
rome. Other diversities are indeed apparent in the 
Greek manuscripts, but they do not seem to be suffi- 
ciently important or marked, to form the grounds of 
a separate classification. A peculiar order of manu- 
scripts is thus observed to exist, which differ very 
materially from the preceding, as they agree with 
each other in possessing many interpolations from 
the writings of later commentatours "^ But as they 
are consequently of partial authority, and are evi- 
dently formed on the basis of the Byzantine text, 
they may be directly referred to the third class, and 
ranked under the edition revised by Lucianus. 

The same observation may be likewise extended 
to several manuscripts of a different character : some 
of which are observed to partake of the peculiarities 
of a different class from that to which they princi- 
pally conform. We thus frequently discover the 
influence of the Palestine text upon the Byzantine ; 
which, doubtless, is to be attributed to the publica- 
tion of Eusebius's edition, at Byzantium^ under the 
auspices of the first Christian Emperour. It is cer- 
tain, that the orthodox, little satisfied with this edi- 
tion, republished a revisal **9^ on the death of Euse- 
bius and Constantine. In this manner St. Athana- 

"* Such are the Moscow MSS. denoted by M. Matthaei and 
M. Griesbach, Mt. a, d, e, g, 10, 11, &c. 
**' Vid. supr. p. 93. ii. '°\ 



( 104 ) 

sius and St. Basil retouched some copies^ of which, 
by an extraordinary chance, we seem to possess spe- 
cimens in the celebrated Alexandrine and Vatican 
manuscripts'^''. But these copies rather contained 
Tevisals of the edition which preceded their times, 
than constituted new editions of the text of Scrip- 
ture. If published by their respective authours, 
they appear not to have passed into general use. 
The text of St. Basil never received the royal autho- 
rity, and was therefore probably dispersed among a 
limited number of readers, and confined to a parti- 
cular region. The revisal of St. Athanasius re- 
ceived that sanction, having been expressly pre- 
pared at the command of the Emperour Constans ; 
but its authority expired with the influence of its 
authour, on the death of that prince, and his brother^ 
the younger Constantine. The revisals of both 
these learned persons may be therefore directly re- 
ferred to the editions of Palestine and Constantino- 
ple, out of which they arose, and into which they 
subsequently merged : and as they are contained in 
the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts, which 
^re respectively allied to those texts, we may con- 
sider them as little more than a repetition of the 
different editions which had been previously pub- 
lished by Eusebius and Lucianus. 

The whole of the Greek manuscripts may be con- 
sequently reduced to three classes, which are iden- 

"° In the course ov the following investigation, these MSS, 
will be particularly described: and the probabilities of their 
alliance to the corrected text of St. Athanasius and St. BasiJ, 
will be examined. 



( 105 ) 
tical with the editions of Egypt, Palestine, and Con- 
stantinople^ as revised b}^ Hesychius, Eusebius, and 
Lucianus. And the adequacy of this distribution 
may be established, with little comparative difficulty. 
As modern criticks, after a careful analysis, are ena- 
bled to reduce all manuscripts to three classes ; and 
distribute the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow ma- 
nuscripts in separate classes : hence, as these manu- 
scripts are likewise the exemplars of the different 
texts in the present scheme of classification, this 
scheme must necessarily embrace every variety, and 
mark every characteristick distinction which modern 
diligence has discovered in the manuscripts of the 
Greek Testament. 

Hence also it becomes possible to reduce every 
manuscript to its proper class in the new scheme, 
on knowing the class in which it Avas placed in the 
old mode of classification. As the Western, Alex- 
andrine, and Byzantine texts in the former method, 
respectively coincide with the Egyptian, Palestine, 
and Byzantine text in the latter ; we have only to 
substitute the term Egyptian for Western, and Pa- 
lestine for Alexandrine, in order to ascertain the 
particular text of any manuscript which is to be 
referred to a peculiar class or edition. The artifice 
of this substitution admits of this simple solution ; 
the Egyptian text was imported by Eusebius, of 
Verceli,into the West'*^ and the Palestine text, re- 
published by Euthalius at Alexandria '^*, the Byzan- 

"' Vid. supr. p. 59. n. '\ conf. p. 51. n. *\ p. 58. n. *\ ., 
^^' Vid. supv. p. 86. an. ^° et ^', 



( 106 ) 

tine text having retained the place in which it was 
originally published by Lucianus. In a word, a 
manuscript which harmonizes with the Codex Can- 
tabrigiensis must be referred to the first class, and 
willcontain the text of Egypt. One which harmo- 
nizes with the Vatican manuscript must be referred 
to the second class, and will contain the text of Pa- 
lestine. And one which harmonizes with the Mos- 
cow manuscript must be referred to the third class, 
and will contain the text of Constantinople '^^ 

It must be now evident almost at a glance, that 
the present scheme corresponds with the different 
methods of those who have undertaken the classifi- 
cation of the Greek manuscripts, and that it derives 
no inconsiderable support from their respective sys- 
tems. 

In the fii^t place it accords with the plan of Dr. 
Bentley, whose object was to confront the oldest 
copies of the Latin Vulgate, and of the original 
Greek '^*, in order to determine the state of the text 
in the age of St. Jerome. And, conformably to his 
plan, it ranks the Vulgate and Vatican manuscript 

'51 To the first class we may consequently refer the Cam- 
bridge, Clermont, St. Germain, Augean, et Bcernerian MSS, 
which are critically denoted by the letters, D, D, E, F, G. 
To the Second Class, we may refer the Vatican, Alexandrine, 
(in the Acts and Epistles), Ephrem, and Stephens's eighth 
MS. which are denoted by the letters B, A, C, L. And to the 
Fourth Class, we may refer the Alexandrine (in the Gospels), 
the Harleian and Moscow MSS. which are denoted by the let- 
ters A, G; Mt. V, H, B. 

*^^ Vid. supr. p. 3. n. \ 



i 107 ) 
in the same class ; which constituted the basis of 
Dr. Bentley's projected edition. But it proceeds 
on a more comprehensive view of the subject, and 
confronts two other classes of the original Greek 
with correspondent classes of the Latin translation. 
And thus it leads not only to a more adequate me- 
thod of classification, but to the discovery of a more 
ancient text; by means of the priority of the old 
Italick version to the new or Vulgate of Jerome. 

It in the next place falls in with the respective 
schemes of M. Griesbach and M. Matthaei, and de- 
rives support from their different systems. It adopts 
the three classes of the former, with a slight varia- 
tion merely in the name of the classes ; deviating 
from that learned critick's scheme in this respect, 
on very sufficient authority '^\ And in ascertaining 
the genuine text, it attaches the same authority to 
the old Italick translation, which the same learned 
person has ascribed to that version *^^. It agrees with 
the scheme of the latter critick, in giving the pre- 
ference to the Greek Vulgate or Byzantine text 
over the Palestine and the Egyptian '^^ ; but it sup- 

'^^ Vid. supr. p. 105. 

"^ M. Griesbach, speaking of the aids which were used by 
the first editours of the Greek Testament, in compiling their edi- 
tion, thus observes, Prolegg. Sect. ii. § i. p. viii. " Latina certe 
usi sunt translatione fateor ; sed partim innumeris gravissimisque 
mendis corrupta, partim llecentiore tantum ilia Vulgata, non 
vero longe jjrccstautiore AnteJiieronymianciy qiue Itula viclgo 
dicitur." 

*^^ M. Blatthaei, who frequently asserts the Extraordinary 
coineidenc& which existed between his MSS. gives the follow- 
ing comparative estimate of the merit of his principal manu- 



( 108 ) 
ports the authority of this text on firmer grounds 
than the concurrence of the Greek manuscripts. 
Hence^ while it ditFers from the scheme of M. Mat- 
thaei^ in building on the old Italick version ; it differs 
from that of M. Griesbach, in distinguishing the 
copies of this translation, which are free from the in- 
fluence of the Vulg-ate, from those which have been 
corrected since the times of St. Eusebius^ of Verceli^^ 
of St. Jerome, and Cassiodorus ''^ And it affords a 
more satisfactory mode of disposing^ of the multitude 
of various readings, than that suggested by the lat- 
ter, who refers them to the intentional or accidental 
corruptions of transcribers ; or that of the former, 
who ascribes them to the correction of the original 
Greek by the Latin translation *^^: as it traces them 
to the influence of the text which was published by 
Eusebius, at the command of Constantine. 

As a system, therefore, that which I venture to 
propose, may rest its pretensions to a preference 
over other methods, on the concessions of those who 
have suggested different modes of classification. 

scripts, H, V, and those denoted by the letters A, D, E, G, D* 
Nov. Test. Tom. IX. p. 254. " Hie Codex [H,] scriptus est 
litteris quadratis, estque eorum omnium qui adhuc in Europa 
innotueruni et velastissimus et prcestantissimus, Insanus quidem 
fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V, comparare, aut cequiparare 
'coluerit Codd. Alexandr, Clar. Germ. Bcern. Cant, qui sine ullo 
dubio pessirae ex scholiis et Versione Latina Vulgata interpo- 
lati sunt. Per totum hunc Codicem via; quinque errores offendi^ 
quos etiam suis locis sedulo notavi. Hunc et Codicem V in 
primis secutus sum." 

"8 Vid. supr p. 59.sqq. Conf.p, 90. sqq, 

*^^ Vid. supr. n. "^ 



( 109 ) 
Independent of its internal consistency^ ^nd the his- 
torical grounds on which it is exclusively built^ its 
comprehensiveness may, I hope, entitle it to a pre- 
cedence: as it embraces the different systems to 
which it is opposed, and reconciles theix respective 
inconsistencies.. 



SECTION III^ 



Having distributed the Greek manuscripts into 
three Classes, the next object of inquiry is, to ascer- 
tain the particular class, in favour of which, the 
clearest and most conclusive evidence can be ad- 
duced, that it preserves the genuine text of Scrip- 
ture. The main difficulty in such an undertaking, 
is, I believe, overcome, in referring these texts to 
the different regions in which they were edited. 
As we acknowledge no authority, but the testimony 
and tradition of the Church, in determining the au- 
thenticity and purity of the Scripture Canon ^ ; that 
text must be entitled to the preference, which has 
been preserved in a region, where the tradition has 
continued unbroken, since the times of the evange- 
lical writers. It is this circumstance which adds so 
much weight to the testimony of the Latin Church, 
as it preserved its faith unimpaired % during the pe- 

* XXXIX Art. § vi. ** In the name of the Holy Scripture 
we do understand the Canonical Books of the Old and New 
Testament, of whose authority was never ani/ doiibt in the 
Church.''^ lb. Art. xx. *' Wherefore, although the Church be 
a xmtness and keeper of Holy Writy" Sfc. 

* Theod. Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. cap. vi. p. 200. 1. 15. 'Avtv 

rr,s voca roLiflms iXsv^iqac ^Ufxsiyc. KuvroitlTtoq fxiv ya^ o rut 
QatcrtMvi uK^cn^^ri on(pu?iOi^t. ttsv tvffs^t^**. 



( in ) 

llod of forty years, when the Greek Church resigned 
itseif to the errours of Arius ^ In addition to tlie 
joint testimony of those Churches,, various direct and 
collateral lights arise on this subject, to determine 
our choice in the different classes, among which we 
are to make our election. Prom possessing a know- 
ledge of the different persons by whom these texts 
were revised, we derive considerable support in 
chusing a particular class, or in selecting a peculiar 
reading. A comparative view of the classes of the 
Greek, or even of the Latin translation, regarded 
either relatively or apart, will frequently enable us 
to determine, by the principles of just criticism^ the 
genuine Scripture text from the corrupted. 

On the most casual application of these principled 
to the different classes of text, they directly mark 
out the Byzantine edition, as that which is entitled 
to a preference over the Egyptian and Palestine. 
In the region occupied by that text, the apostolical 
writings were deposited ; and they were here com- 
bined in a code, by the immediate successours of the 
apostles. Here St. Paul, and his companion St. 
Luke, published the principal part of the Canon. 
rVom hence the great apostle addressed his Epistle 
to the Church at Rome'^ ; and hither he directed his 
Epistles to the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Ephe-» 

3 Vid. supr. p. 29. n. ^^ 

* Origen. Praef. in Epist. ad Rom. Tom. IV. p. 459. e^, 
Bened. — " Etiam illud baud absurde admonebimus, quod vide«» 
tur hanc Epistolam de Corintho scribere, et aliis quidem pluribus 
indiciis, evidentius tamen ex eo quod dicit : * Commendo autem 
vobis Phoeben sororem nostram ministram EcclesicPy quce est 
Cenchris* Cenchris enim dicitur locus Corintho vicinus ivio 
partus ij^sius Corinthi^*^ &c. 



( 112 ) 

sus^ Phillppi, Colosse^ and Thessalonica^; which were 
situated in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Hi- 
ther St. John returned from banishment : here he 
remained until the times of Trajan ^, exercising the 
functions of an Ordinary^; and here^ having* com- 
pleted the sacred Canon, by composing his Gospel 
and Apocalypse, he collected the writings of the 
other Evangelists, which he combined in a code, 
and sanctioned with the apostolical authority *. 

^ This is evident from the superscriptions of the Epistles. 
Vid.infr. p. 115. n. *^ 

^ Euseb. Hist, Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxiii. p. 112. 1. 10. 

0* hyoi'Trei 6 'li9<r«?, AworoAo? o/^« xat 'Efa/ysXiri? 'lucivvnq, TaV etvToBi 

cucrBxi rov ?.6yov [jia^rvfujv, 7r»ro* o av etev arot EiprivccToq xaX 

KXrjfjt.r,c A'Ki^etv^fiU, m o [tXi wpoTtpo; h hvrepeo rwv wfO? ra? AlfiO-ete 
u^tTTui; ypci<pn xaroi Xe'ltv, '* Kat Trccvrsq o» VfBff^vri^oi />:af>TVf3crj» 
of xara t^v 'Acrtav 'luixuvrt tu t5 Kyp3 |M.aSy;T« cry^.S£/Sx»jy.oTe?> 

«VM p(^§Dvwv." Conf. S. Iresn. adv. Haer. Lib. II. cap. xxii, 
p. 148. ed. Bened. 

^ Clem. Alexandr, quisn. div. salv. poss. p. 112. 'E^rtioi yci^ 

l<c^T?^^£v [|« ludi/txc^ a.'? T>;> "E^acrov, w'Ttjei 7roc^atKU?,eiJLitoc x«* Itt* ra 

exxKna^acq a^uos-uvf oW ^e xA^pw baye Titcc x>,v)^u<Tuv Tuv vtfo t5 

UvsvfjLaroq a-r.jj.oitvoiJLEyuv, Conf. Euseb. ub. supr. p. 112. 1, 

1—8. 

• » Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxiv. p. 116. 1. 55. 

*iuccivr,v tpaa-) T0» TavTce %po»oK uyfdipcj xi^^r,[/.siiov xyi^vy{A,ari, ri?^o; 
Kut IttI rr,¥ ypoi(p7^v Ix^eh To»acr^£ x^r*" «*'J'*a?» '^^'> TT^oavaypa^evTcyv 
T^Twv £1? 9r«»T«? >?^>) xai els" a^rov ^ia5c5ojw,£'vci;v, aTroJe^acrS'at 



( 113 ) 

And here every facility was afforded Linus, the 
first Bishop of Rome^ and Timothy, the first Bishop 
of Ephesus^^ from their connexion with St. Paul '°, 
St. Luke, and St. John '^ to form perfect copies of 
the New Testament Canon, which had been partly 
collected by the last surviving apostle. 

The peculiar text which exists in this region, is 
not merely supported by the consideration of the 
place in which it is found : it is also supported by 
the concurring testimony of the Eastern and West- 
ern Churches. It is that text which we adopted 
immediately from the Greeks, on forming our print- 
ed editions and vernacular versions And it is that 
which is exclusively used by the only learned branch 
of the Greek Church, which now exists ; and which 
is established in Russia. It is also the text which 
is supported by the concurring testimony of the old 

iiv)fuy[/,xroi i/wo rtf X^trS Trfw^ay/x/fwy otyiyriaiv. xat aA^jS^? yc » 
^6yo(;» 

^ Id. ib. cap. iv. p. 91. I. 15. Tj^o^eo? yt fx\» tJJ? Jv EipsVej 

y.xrcc Tiiv hvTe^oiv Trpo? Tif/.o^Bov ETrtroXyjy, -/rpuiro? [/.sTa, UBTpo* 

h^rT^urcci, Vid. infr. p. 115. n. '*. 

'" Gomp. 2 Tim. iii. 10, 11. iv. 11, 12. 21. The facts al- 
luded to in this passage are illustrated by the Evangelist St. 
Luke, in Acts xiii. 14, 50. xiv. 1, 2. xix. 22. On this subject 
we may particularly note the command given to Timothy oa 
the subject of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15, 16. iv. 9. 13. 
It was given by the Apostle shortly before his death, and with 
a perfect foresight of his approaching dissolution, 2 Tim. iv. 
6, 7, 8. Act. XXV. 25. 38. 



( 114 ) 

Italick vei*sion, contained in the Brescia manu- 
script '\* which is obviously free from the innova- 
tions of St. Eusebius of Verceli^ of St. Jerome, and 
Cassiodorus'*. Consequently, it is the only text of 
the three editions which challenges the general tes- 
timony of the Eastern Churchy and the unadulter- 
ated testimony of the Western, in favour of its 
integrity. 

The particular manner in which the Western 
Church delivers its testimony, in confirmation of that 
of the Greek Church, seems almost decisive in 
evincing the permanence and purity of the text of 
Byzantium. The Brescia manuscript^ which con- 
tains this testimony, possesses a text, which, as com- 
posed of the old Italick version, must be antedated 
to the year 393^ when the new version was made 
by St. Jerome '^ It thus constitutes a standing 
proof, that the Byzantine text, with which it agrees, 
has preserved its integrity for upwards of 1400 
years ; during which period it was exposed to the 
greatest hazard of being corrupted. This proof, it 
may be presumed, affords no trifling earnest, that 
it has not been corrupted during the comparatively 
inconsiderable period of two hundred and ninety 
years, which intervene between this time and the 
publication of the inspired writings. For while 
290 years bear no proportion to 1400, the chances 
of such a corruption must diminish in proportion as 
we ascend to the time of the apostles. The first 

»* Vid. supr. p. 62. sqq. 
'^ Vid. supr. p. 90. sqq. 
*^ Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 



( 115 ) 

topyists must necessarily have observed a degree of 
carefulness in making their transcripts proportion- 
able to their reverence for the originals^ which they 
took as their models : from the autographs of the 
apostles^ or their immediate transcripts, there could 
be no inducement to depart, even in a letter. It is> 
however, not merely probable, that the originals 
were preserved for this inconsiderable period ; but 
that they were preserved with a degree of religious 
veneration '*. And if they were preserved in any 

** Tertul. Praescr. adv. Haer. cap. xxxvi. p. ^IL " Age jam 
qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, 
percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsas adhuc cathedrae 
Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur ; apud quas ipscB autheniicc^ 
litter ce eorum recitantu?', sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes fa- 
ciem unius cujusque. Proxime est tibi Achaia, hades Corin- 
ihum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Fhilippos, habes 
Thessalonidenses, Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum: 
si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auc* 
toritas praesto est. Statu foelix Ecclesia ! cui totam doctrinam 
Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt; ubi Petrus passioni 
Dominicae adsequatur; ubi Paulus^ Joannis exitu, coronatur; 
ubi Apostolus JoanneSf posteaquam, in oleum igneum demersus, 
nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur ! Videamus quid dixerit> 
quid docuerit, quid cum Africanis Ecclesiis contesserarit.** 
The best commentary on the phrase, *' authenticae litterae/' 
Used by this arltient father, of whom St. Jerome speaks, Cat. 
Scrippt. Eccless* v. Luc. as being " near the Apostles* times,'* 
is contained in the following declarations of his disciple St. Cy- 
prian, who lived in the next succession after the Apostles ; S. 
Cypr. Presbb. et Diacc. Rom. Epist. ix. p. 19. ed Oxon. 
*' Legi etiam Literas in quibus nee qui scripserint, nee ad quos 
scriptum est significanter expressum est. Et quoniam me in 
iisdem literis, et scriptura et sensus et chartae ipsae quoque mo- 
Verunt, ne quid ex vero vel subtractum sit vel immutatum; 



( 116 ) 

pkce^ it must have been in the region contlguoiu 
to Constantinople^ where they were originally de- 

isandeni ad vos epistolam authenticam remisi, ut recognoscatis 
an ipsa sit quam Clementio hypodiacono perferendam dedistis : 
perquam etenim grave est, si epistolae clericse Veritas mendacio 
4liquo et fraude corrupta est. Hoc igitur ut scire possimus, et 
scriptura et subscriptio an vestra sit recognoscite ; et nobis quid 
sit in vero rescribite." Id. Presbb. et Diacc. Ep. xxxii. p. Q5, 
*< Quales literas ad Clerum Romae agentem fecerim, quidque 
illi mihi f escripserint, quid etiam Moyes et Maximus Presby- 
teri — sDque ad literas meas rescripserint, ut scire possetis exeiri' 
pla vobis legenda transmisi. Vos curate quantum potestis pro 
diligentia vestra, ut scripta nostra, et illorum resaipita fratribus 
nostris innotescant. Sed et si qui de peregrinis Episcopi Col- 
legse mei, vel Presbyteri, vel Diacones praesentes fuerint vel 
supervenerint, haec omnia de vobis audiant ; et si exempla epis- 
tolarum transcribere et ad suos perferre voluerint, facultatem 
transcription is accipiant. Quamvis et Saturo lectori, fratri 
nostro mandaverim, ut singulis desiderantibus describendi faciat 
potestatem, ut in Ecclesiarum statu quoquo modo interim com- 
ponendo servetur ab omnibus una et fida consensio." With a 
view to explain the terms authejiticce littera^, and exempla epis' 
iolarimiy as used in St. Cypriari'^s age^ I have transcribed these 
long passages : not so much in reply to the objections of Mr. 
Person's Letter to Adn. Travis, p. 276 ; as to illustrate the 
extraordinary care which was taken by the primitive Chris- 
tians to disperse and authenticate all documents which related 
to their Ecclesiastical Polity. If the early Church was thus 
careful in verifying and publishing the commonest documents ; 
with what care must she have proceeded when employed in 
transcribing and dispersing the sacred Scriptures ! Both ihe 
above-cited Epistles of St. Cyprian are upon the same subject ; 
and were occasioned by a communication from the Church of 
Rome, relative to the martyrdom of Fabianus, their Bishop, 
who perished in the Decian Persecution ; Conf. S. Cypr. Ep. 
ub. supr. Pears. Annall. Cypriann. § viii. p. 20. The informa- 
lity, of which St. Cyprian complains, in the R-oman Clergy,t 



X 117 ) 

posited. To this region, of course^ we must natu- 
rally look for the genuine text of Scripture. 

It is indeed true, that those Churches, which were 
the witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, vary in 
their testimony; and that the Greek original, as 
well as the Latin translation, have undergone some 
alteration : as appears from the classes into which 
they are respectively divided. But, as they do not 
vary from each othe^ in above one essential point, 
but generally conspire in their testimony, the tran* 
slation following the varieties of the original ; as we 
can also follow up these varieties to their source, 
and can trace them to the alterations made by Hesy* 
chius and Eusebius in the Greek, and to the corre- 
spondent corrections made by St. Eusebius and St. 
Jerome in the Latin : the fidelity of the witnesses 
still remains unimpaired, and the unadulterated tes- 
timony of the Eastern and Western Churches still 
lies on the side of the text of Lucianus. 

These deductions will receive additional confir- 
mation, and every objection to which they are ex- 
posed will be easily solved, by investigating apart 
the respective testimony of the Eastern and West- 
ern Churches. In the course of this investiga- 
tion, it shall be my object to meet those objec- 
tions which may be urged against the Byzantine 
text from the character of Eusebius and Jerome, 
who have avowed a predilection for the Pales- 
tine. 



was occasioned by the disturbed state of the Church at that 
period. 



( lis ) 

. I. The first argument which may be advanced iri 
favour of the uncori*upted testimony of the Eastern 
Church, is deducible from the extraordinary coin- 
cidence observed to exist betvs^een the manuscripts 
of the Byzantine edition. Though the copies of 
this edition, which constitutes the Greek Vulgate of 
the present age, and which seemingly constituted 
that of the age of St. Jerome, are considerably 
more numerous than those of the other editions *^ 
they possess the most extraordinary conformity, in 
their peculiar readings '^. Had they existed in a 
state of progressive deterioration, it is obvious, that 
at the end of seventeen centuries, they must have 
presented a very different appearance. The extra- 
ordinary uniformity which pervades the copies of 
this edition, involves much more than a presumptive 
proof, that they have retained their fidelity to the 
common source, from which they have unquestion- 
ably descended. 

But that this source must be remote, is a fact, 
which is equally deducible from the consideration of 
the number of the copies which we possess of the 
Byzantine edition. The text of this edition appa- 
rently possesses no intrinsick merit, that could en- 

'5 Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxil. *' Praecipuus vero 
recensionum in criseos sacra: exercitio usus hic est, ut earum 
auctoritate lectiones bonas, sed injpaucis liby-is superstites defen- 
damus adversus juniorum et Vulgarium Codicum innumerabilem 
'pa^ne turbam,** 

'^ MatthEpi Praef. in Nov. Test. Tom. I. p. xxvi. " Plerum- 
que enim meiioris notae Codices omnes inter se consentiunt. Qui 
vero notabiliter corrupti sunt, unde corrupt! sunt, multis in locis 
facile intelligitur," &c. Vid. supr. p. 107. n. '". 



( 119 ) 

title it to supersede the Palestine text, which wa» 
recommended by the united authority of Eusebius 
and the Emperour Constantine. And yet it ha* 
undoubtedly superseded the latter at Constantino- 
ple, where the Palestine text was first published 
under every advantage, arising from the authority 
of the persons by whom it was edited. Nay, it has 
superseded it so effectually, that scarcely a copy of 
Eusebius's text is to be found in this region'': 
where Eusebius's edition was originally published. 
Nor is this all, but the Byzantine text must have thus 
superseded the Palestine text, within a short space 
of the death of Eusebius. This is apparent not only 
from the existence of the former text in the Alex- 
andrine manuscript, which was written within at 
least forty years of that period ; but from the coin- 
cidence of this text with the Brescia manuscript, 
which contains the old Italick translation, which pre- 
vailed until the age of St. Jerome. Now, when we 
consider the invincible pertinacity with which the 
churches persevered in adhering to the common or 
vulgar text '^; it seems impossible to account for so 

" The application made for manuscripts at Jerusalem, in 
order to furnish the Emperour, John II. with copies of a parti- 
cular description, will sufficiently evince how rare the Pales- 
tine text was at Constantinople. Vid. supr. p. 35. n. ^\ conf. 
p. 81. n. '°. 

'^ Notwithstanding the extreme caution, which St. Jerome 
evinced in revising the antient Vulgate ; having left the old 
readings uncorrected, and merely marked the superfluous words 
with an obelus, and the inserted terms with an asterism ; his 
revisal was received with great jealousy, and gave considerable 
offence. Vid, supr. p. 101. ji. »*5, conf. infr. p. 137. n. '\ Tha 



( 120 ) 

great and so sudden a revolution as thus occurred at 
Constantinople, otherwise than by supposing, that 
the attachment to tradition prevailed over the influ- 
ence of authority ; and that the edition of Eusebius 
thus gave place to the text of Lucianus, having su- 
perseded it, but for that limited period in which it 
was sustained by the royal authority. This assump- 
tion, which is confirmed in an extraordinary manner 
by the demand made by the Emperour Constans to 
St. Athanasius, to furnish a new edition on the death 
of Eusebius ^^, is finally proved by the immense 
number of manuscripts possessing the Byzantine text;, 
which have been brought from Constantinople. Had 
not that change taken place, which it would be my 
object to evince, and at a period thus early, it is im- 
possible to conceive, how it could have taken place 
so effectually as to extinguish the edition of Euse- 
bius where it was originally publisaed ; or, so pecu- 
liarly, as to reinstate the text of Lucianus. 

Whatever force be allowed to these conclusions^ 



following anecdote is vouched, on the authority of St. Augus- 
tine, of an African Bishop, who had endeavoured to introduce 
into his Church the New Version made by St. Jerome from the 
Hebrew; S. Aug. Hieron. Epist. lxxi. Tom. II. c. 161. c. 
Quidam frater noster episcopus, cum Jectitari institiiisset in eccle- 
sia cui praeest, interpret atio?2 em tiiam, movit quiddam longe 
aliter a te positum, apud Jonam prophetam, quam erat omnium 
sensibus memoriceque. inveteratum et tot cetatum successionibus 
decantatum : factusqiie est tantus tumultiis in plebe, maxinie 
Graecis arguentibus, et inclamantibus calumniam falsitatis, 
ut cogeretur episcopus, (ea quippe civitas erat) JudcEorum testi' 
moniiim Jlagitare." 
~ y Vid. infr. p. 131. sqq. 



( 121 ) 

it must be at least admitted, that, as the testimony of 
the Brescia manuscript enables us to trace the tradi- 
tion of the Byzantine text to a period as remote as 
the year 393 ^° ; that of the Alexandrine manuscript 
enables us to trace it to a period not less remote than 
the year 367. The pedigree of this extraordinary 
manuscript, which is referred to the latter period, 
has been traced with a degree of accuracy which is 
unparalleled in the history of manuscripts. An im- 
memorial tradition prevailed in the church from 
whence it was brought, that it was written not long 
subsequently to the Council of Nice, by a religious 
woman named Thecla**. A religious person of this 
name certainly existed at this period ^^ to whom 
some of the Epistles of Gregory Nazianzen^^ are 
addressed; and the characters of the manuscript are 
of that delicate form, which evinces, that it was 
written by the hand of a female. Nay, more than 
this, the tradition of the church respecting this ma- 
nuscript,, which there is no just ground for impeach- 
ing, is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by the 
internal evidence of the text, as it possesses every 
characteristick mark which might be expected to 
exist in a manuscript written at that early period. 
I shall merely specify a few of the internal marks 
from which the learned editour concludes, that it 
was written between the middle and close of the 

** Vid. supr. p. 70. n. '^ 

^' Vid. Negot. of Sir Tho. Roe, p. 618. 41.4. 460. 
*^ Vid. Usser. Antiqq. Britt. Eccless. p. 110. 
^^ Vid. Roe, ub. supr. p. 618. Woid, Praef. in Cod, Alex. 
p. ix. § 44, 45, 



( 122 ) 

fourth century. It possesses the Gospels divided^ 
by the sections of Eusebius^ which were introduced 
in the former period ^^^j* it retains the Pauline Epis- 
tles^ without those divisions^ which were invented in 
the latter period ^^ : and it contains, as a part of the 
authorized text^^ the Epistles of St. Clement, which^ 
about the same period, were prohibited from being- 
read in the Church, by the Council of Laodicea*"^. 
For plenary information on this subject, the reader 
must apply to the admirable Preface of the learned 
Dr. Woide, by whom it was published. From such 
internal evidence, joined with the external testi- 
mony of the Church, has the age of this celebrated 
manuscript been determined "^^i and as it contains 

** Woid. ibid. p. vii. § 36. " Indicem Periocharum seu 
Capitulorum antiqiiorum ante initium Evcmgeliorum ponit, quod 
et alii Codices MSSti et Milii editio recte imitati sunt. Pra* 
terea etiam numerum et tituUim Periockarum in summa pagina 
adscripsit.— — Etiam ad sinistrum marginem notantiir hccc Ca- 
pihda quae ?vlillius quoque notare non neglexit. — Praeterea 
etiam numerus Cajpitulorum Utera alijhabeti minio appin- 
gitiir," 

^' Id. ibid. ** In Actis Ajpostolicis et Epistolis Generalibus 
et Paidinis nulla Capitida apparent, in quae Euthalius diviserat 
hos libros, licet paragraphos seu periodos a nova linea et ma- 
jori litera exordiri videas frequentissime. In Actis Apostolorum 
tantummodo in locis sequentibus notulam crucis observavi (quae 
in Evangeliis initium sectioniim Eusebianorum et Capitidorum 
designate, scilicet cap. iii. 1. iv. ad fin. vers. 3. viii. 26. x. 1.'* 
&c. 

^ Vid. Bevereg. Cod. Cann. Eccles. Prim. Illustr. P. II. 
cap. ix. p. 116. 

^^ Woid. ub. supr. § 53, 

"^ Id. ib. § 80. " Si itaque lectores et formas literarum Co- 
dicis nostri, Clementis llomani Epistolas, et Psalmos Salomoni§j 



( 123 ) 

the Byzantine text, in the Gospels *^, it necessarily 
proves the antiquity of that text to be as remote as 
the year three hundred and sixty-seven, when the 
Epistles of St. Clement were formally separated 
from the Canonical Scripture '°. 

The space of time which intervenes between this 
ancient period, and that in which the sacred writings 
were published, is not so immeasurable as to pre- 
clude the possibility of proving^ that the tradition, 
which supports the Byzantine text, thotigh suspend- 
ed for a short period, was preserved uncorrupted. 
In the entire course of this period,- there was but 
one interval in which it could be interrupted ; dur- 
ing the forty years in which the Church was under 
the dominion of the Arians''. But over this period, 
the testimony of St. Jerome, Who lived at the time, 
directly carries us; as he declares that the text 
which prevailed at Byzantium, was that which had 
been revised by Lucianus'*, who perished in the 
persecution of Dioclesian and Maximian '^ The 
traditionary chain is thus easily connected. We 

Euthalii sectiones et r^is-xyiov, quae desunt, si caetera argumenta 
summam ejus antiquitatem confii*mantfa, consideratissime per- 
penderint, omnia conspirare videbunt, ut Codicem Alexandrinnm 
intra medium etjinem seculi quarti scriptum esse ipsis persuadeant. 

*' Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. n. *. Hinc accidit ut 
Codex Alexandrinus non in omnibus libris, eandem textus recen- 
sionem sequeretur. In Evangeliis exhibet recensionem Constant 
tinopolitanam sive Asiaticara,'* &c. 

3^* Vid. supr. nn. *' et "-^ 

^* Vid. supr. p. 29. n. *^ 

^* Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ". conf. p. 100. n. '^* 

3' Vid. infr. n. ?». conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. Vjll. cap, 
xiii. p. 393. 1* 32. 



( 1^^ ) 

know that in Constan tine's a^, Eusebius's text was 
published at Constantinople '* ; we know that Lnci- 
anus's Septuagint differed from it, and that in St. 
Jerome's age it prevailed in the same region ^^ 
There is consequently no alternative, but to admit, 
that the tradition which was interrupted in the former 
period, was renewed in the latter. 

Now as the Scripture Canon was not published 
until the beginning of the second century ^^ and as 
Lucianus most probably completed his revisal be- 
fore the year 284, wlien the Dioclesian aera com- 
menced, the Byzantine text, if it has undergone 
any alteration, must have been corrupted in the 
course of this period. It will be readily granted, 
for reasons already specified, that this alteration 
could not have taken place in the earlier part of this 
term '^. The last possibility which the question ad- 
mits, consequently is, that it was corrupted in the 
latter part of it, when the text was revised by the 
hand of Lucianus. 

But against this possibility, we have the strongest 
security in the character of that learned and pious 
martyr. To his skill in revising the sacred text, 
the most honourable testimony is borne, by the most 
unimpeachable witnesses ; Eusebius and Jerome. 

3+ Vid. Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. IV. capp. xxxvi, xxxviL 
p. 64-6. sqq. 

35 Vid. supr. p.*72. n. '\ 

3^ S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. V. cap. xxx. p. 330. OjJJe ya^ v^l 

9roXK» Xgovy icjfoi^ii £r] a7ro/ca^t;^|/^s3 > a^^a ^^e^ht lir* rr,q r}fjt,ire^ci<; 
yivsaiq, 'TT^OS ru TfiT^Si «^f AOjjX67Eav5 »flX^^* ^^^^' ^M^X. p. 112. 

no. ^ et 7. 
" Vid. supr. p. 115. 



( 125 ) 

These best judges of antiquity have expressed them- 
selves on this subject in terms of the most unqua- 
lified approbation ^^. One slight^ yet important cir- 
cumstance, which the latter critick has left on re- 
cord, clearly evinces the scrupulous fidelity with 
which Lucianus discharged this sacred trust. The 
text which he published was that of the vulgar 
Greek, or common edition ^^; which loudly pro- 
claims, that his intention was to preserve the in- 
spired text in the state in which he found it ; 
though, in pursuing this course, he acted in direct 
opposition to the authority of Origen, who set him 
a different example. Let us now take this circum- 
stance into account, together with the critical repu- 
tation of Lucianus : let us consider, that the place 
and period in which he made his revisal, was the 
region where the inspired writings were deposited, 
and within a short distance of the period when they 
were published: let us then revert to the possibiU- 
ties which have been already calculated, that the 
immediate transcripts of the writings of the Apostles 

3« Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IX. cap. vi. p. 444. 1. 22. 

AtfJtiai'oij Ti «v'>5^ Ta ttocvicx. cc^iToq^ 0icf t£ eyy.pccTTi^ X^ ToTs UgoTi' 

viXTCi^uv EKTuy^afE, irxfutr^a/v Ts tTTi T» apvovTo? T'/iv VTrep 'h<; Tr^oh-o-ro 
^i^x(7y.a7^ix<; oi'7ro>.oyiXV, ^ejj.an'Kficj Trapad'&Ssi? KrUiVTai. S. Hier. 

Catal. Scripp. Eccll. in Lucian. Tom. I. p. 128, *' Lucianus 
^ir disertissimus, Antiochense Ecclesiae presbyter, tantum ifi 
Scripturarum studio lahoravity ut usque nunc ({Wdd&^mexemplaria 
Scripturarum Luciatiea nuncupentur. — Passus est Nicoroediae 
ob confessionem Christi sub persecutione Maximini"— 
39 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ". 



( 126 ) 

and Evangelists could have been corrupted in little 
more than one hundred years^ while the Byzantine 
text has confessedly retained its integrity for full 
eleven hundred^''. We may thence form a just 
estimate of the conclusiveness of that evidence which 
still exists in attestation of the purity of the text of 
Lucianus. 

In fine, a very short process enables us to prove, 
that the tradition which supports the authority of 
this text, has continued unbroken since the age of 
the apostles. The coincidence of the Vulgar Greek 
of our present editions with the old Italick transla- 
tion, enables us to carry up the tradition to the times 
of St. Jerome ''^*. The testimony of this learned fa- 
ther enables us to extend the proof beyond this 
period, to the times of Lucianus, in whose age 
the Byzantine text equally constituted the Vul- 
gate or common edition '•^*. And the character of 
Lucianus, and the course which he pursued in re- 
vising the sacred text, connects this proof with the 

'^^ Thus long has the Byzantine text existed, even by the 
confession of M. Griesbach, whose object required that it should 
be brought as low as possible. Griesb. Hist. Text, Epp. Paull- 
sect. i. § 11. Mirum — nemini videbitur qui secum reputaverit 
sexto aid septimo seculo extitisse jam illam recensionem quce in 
codicibus plerisqice habetur, et a textu vulgari typis excuse 
parum differt ; inde vero a seculo octavo vix novani rece?isionem 
idlam jprocuratam fuisse, nee variantium lectionum numerum 
insigniter auctum esse, si sphalmata demas a librariis dormitan-* 
tibus aduiissa, et glossas nonnullas e margine in textum temere 
translatas." 

*' Vid.supr. pp. 70,71. 

♦* Vid. supr. p, 72, n. 'K 



( 127 ) 

times of the inspired writers *% who could alone im- 
press that authority upon one text, which, by bring- 
ing it into general use, rendered it, from the primi- 
tive ages down to the present day, the xo*j.>j U^Un, 
or Greek Vulgate. 

The mode of proof which thus establishes the 
authority of the Byzantine text, is not more deci- 
sive, from being positively than exclusively true. 
When applied to the Egyptian and Palestine texts, 
it is so far from establishing an immemorial uninter- 
rupted tradition in their favour, that it completely 
limits their pretensions to a definite period. 

The manuscripts containing both these texts are 
comparatively few, having been generally super-, 
seded by the Byzantine edition ^+. We scarcely 
possess a second copy of the Egyptian text; and 
should almost doubt its existence, if it were not at- 
tested by St. Jerome, and if his testimony were not 
confirmed by the coincidence of the Sahidick ver- 
sion with the Latin translation of St. Eusebius, and 
by the agreement of both with the Cambridge ma- 
nuscript, and the manuscripts collated by Thomas 
Heraclensis^^ The manuscripts containing the Pa- 



« Via. STipr. p. 125. n. 'K 

^* Vid. supr. p. 118. n. '\ p. 126. n. 4^. 



♦5 Vid. supr. pp. 73—78. In addition to what has been ob- 
served on the MSS. collated by Thomas Heraclensis, supr. 
p. 78. n. '5; it remains to be observed, that the Verceli, Verona 
MSS. and the Latin, nay, the Greek of the Cambridge MS. 
>vhich respectively possess the text of Hesychius, have been 
copied from different exemplars. The Verce'i MS. possesses 
the following passage, which is not found in the other three ; 
Mat. iii. 15. " Et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsi; 



( 128 ) 

lestlne text are more numerous ; but, according to 
the confession of M. Griesbach, they bear no pro- 
portion to those of the Byzantine edition ^^, And 
they fall infinitely short of the number which might 
be expected to exist, when we consider the favour- 
able circumstances under which the Palestine text 
was edited by Eusebius, and republished, with 
manifest improvements, by Euthalius, at Alexandria. 
There is thus no presumption in favour of their anti- 
quity, arising- from the number or general dispersion 
of the copies. 

The place from whence these manuscripts are 
derived^ detracts not a httle from their authority. 

de aqua, ita ut timerent qui adrenerunt." This passage was 
however found in the exemplar from which the Cambridge 
Greek was copied ; for the preceding verse is drawn out in such 
a manner, that single words occupy the place of lines, in order 
to fill up the space made by the removal of this passage, and to 
accommodate the Greek to the Latin: vid. Cod. Cant. fol. 10. 
ed. Kippl. As the Latin of this MS. is not so circumstanced, it 
was, of course, taken from a different copy from that which 
produced the Greek. The Verona MS.f on the other hand, 
possesses the following passage, which is not found in the Ver- 
celi MS. Matt. xxiv. 31. " Cum cceperint autem haec fieri 
respicite et levate capita vestra, quoniam adpropriat redemptio 
vestra." This passage however occurs in the Cambridge 
Greek, ib. ^p;\^o^£vwv ^\ riiruv y'ivtj^oci uvoL^'^i-^art ytu) iiroc^ocrt 
tuq Ki'potT^a.q vy.ujv SioTi lyyl^ii r) uToxirpuxriq i^^av' and in the Cam- 
bridge Latin ib. " Incipientibus autem his fieri," &c. But the 
Cambridge MS. differs from the Verona, and agrees with the 
Verceli MS. in transposing Mat. v. 4, 5. These remarks will, I 
trust, sufficiently prove, that an entire Class of MSS. possessing 
the Egyptian text, once existed. 

^^ Vid, supr. p. 118. n. '\ p. 126. n. *°. 



( 129 ) 

They are ascribed by M. Griesbach to tlie Alexan- 
drine region ; and there is little reason to question 
his authority on this subject. Here the Egyptian 
text was published by Hesychius, and hence brought 
into the west by St. Eusebius, of Verceli^^ ; and here 
the Palestine text was republished by Euthalius, 
who corrected his edition by Eusebius's copies, which 
were preserved at Csesarea'^^ Now, taking the 
question on these grounds, there is httle room for a 
competition between the Byzantine and Palestine 
editions. The country in which the one arose w^as 
that in which the apostolical originals were depo- 
sited ; that in which the other was transplanted, was 
the soil in which the Arian heresy first arose and 
principally flourished "^^ When we take this cir- 
cumstance into account, together with the peculiar 
opinions of Eusebius, by whom the Palestine text 
was revised and published, who lies under a suspi- 
cion of being tainted with Arianism ^°, it seems to 
leave very little authority to a text which is particu- 

*' Vid. supr. p. 105. n. ^^\ 
*8 Vid. supr. p. 105. ru '^\ 
*^ Euseb. Vit. Constant. Lib. II. cap. Ixi. p, 566, 1. 2. 

xaTEiS' uq uTFo |Octxp« o-w»v$?fo? {xsyx wvp t^B^O'Sro' axpeiq fAv ucrrrep 

rriv avixTraauv "AlyvTrroii re jc Aj/SiJtjv, rriv r sTriasivoc (Bnt^&i^a.' 
Ti'dri Si x^ tdq Mifru<; imveixiro iTTotp^ioci; re x^ -jrohsic' uq' » fjuQvovq 9)9 

vhri% KUTarifji.vo^e\icc» Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. vi, 
p. 10. 1. 7—11. Lib. IL cap. xxviii. p. 120. 1. 40. Lib. IV. 
cap, vii. p. 268. 1. 27. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. vii. 
p. 200. 1. 25—40. 

5° Vid^supr. p.39. nn.^8et7°. 



( 130 ) 

larly calculated to support the peculiar errours of 
Arius 5'. 

But tlie authority of these texts is not merely 
weakened by this circumstance ; that the tradition- 
ary evidence which may be urged in their favour is 
broken by the distance of Egypt and Palestine from 
Byzantium^ where the originals of the inspired 
writers were deposited^ and by the positive extinc- 
tion of both texts in the region where they were pub- 
lished. When we carry up our inquiries higher we 
find unquestionable evidence of two breaches in the 
chain of tradition ; either of which would destroy 
the credit of the text which hung on it for support. 

In the first place^ the edition of Hesychius was 
positively superseded in Egypt by that of Eutha- 
lius 5*. And of the extensive influence of the edition 
of the latter^ we have a standing evidence, in the 
prevalence of the Euthalian ^ections^ which very 
generally exist in the Greek manuscripts ^^ In 



5* Vid. supr. p. 28. n. '^'. 

^* This point is clearly conceded by M. Griesbach, in pro- 
nouncing the Palestine text the Alexandrine; vid. supr. p. 86» 
nn. 8° et s^ 

55 Zaccagn. Collect. Monn. Vet. Eccles. Praef. p. Jxviii. § ir* 
** At vero Eiithalii divisiones perpetuo in usu ajmd Grcecos fa^ 
isse, ii probe norunt, qui veteres Bibliorum Codices perlus- 
trarunt, in quihisfere omnibus habentur Capitula ah Euthalio 
excogitata. Vidit cnim multos Novi Testamenti scriptos Codi- 
ces Robertus Stephanas-— viderunt et alios Cedices viri doctis- 
simi, qui de Biblicis rebus tractarunt ; sed hos o??mes una 
eodemqiw 7nodo, in Evangeliorura quidem textu juxta Alexandri- 
num Cyrilli Lucaris Codicem, in reliquis vero ejusdem libris,. 
Apocal ypsi exgepta, juxta Eathalium nostrum divisos fuisse U~ 



( 131 ) 

fact, so little calculated was the Egyptian text to 
retain its gTOund against the powerful influence of 
the Palestine, under the double publication of En- 
sebius and Euthalius, that the former was soon ex- 
tinguished by the latter, in the region which may 
be termed its native soil. And so effectual has been 
its extirpation, that unless a few manuscripts had 
been imported into the West, we should retain no 
memorials of this text, but those which remain in 
the translations made in the Thebais, previously to 
the publication of Euthalius's edition ^^. Very dif- 
ferent was the fate of the Byzantine text. Though 
it gave place to the Palestine text, in the times of 
Constantine ; the testimony of St. Jerome puts it 
out of dispute, that it must have been reinstated in 
a short period ^^ after the death of the elder Euse- 
bius. 

In the next place, the traditionary evidence in 
favour of the Palestine text is broken by the inter- 
vention of an edition prepared by St. Athanasius, 
under the auspices of the Emperour Constans ^^. It 

quet. Vidi et ego flitrimos Novi Testamenti scriptos Codices, 
(Juorum nonnulli eximia sunt vetustate venerandi, eisdem Alex- 
andrini exemplaris, et Euthalii nosiri Capitidis insignitos, So- 
him in Othobonianse Bibliothecae veteri Codice, liis Uteris et his 
numeris signato R. ii. vii. Apostolorum Acta in rapitula li. 
divisa reperi, et in Aldi Manutii, Pauli Filii, Aldi nepotis Co- 
dice, qui nunc ejusdemmunere inter Vaticanos 633'^-^ numera- 
tiir, alius a mdgatis titulorum ordo hahetitrJ" 

** Vid. supr. pp. 54, 55 et nn. in locc. 

^5 St. Jerome wrote previously to the year 393. vid. supr. p. 
70. n. 3^ and Eusebius died in the year 340. vid. infr. n. ^^ 

'^ S. Athan. Apol. ad Constant. § 4. Tom. I. p. 297. ed. Be- 
lied. IL^iy^'zun) UtcI TKq A7\ = ^XV^fiiai;^ VK £»<• rl r^^J^T^t^'^V Tt £i^£?.(p3 



( 132 ) 
is a remarkable fact^ that the application for this 
edition was made in the very year of the death of 
Eusebius ^^ ; who paid the debt of nature about the 
same time as the younger Constantine 5^ An ap- 
plication of this kind, made at this remarkable pe- 
riod, if it does not convey some tacit censure ag*ainst 
the text of Eusebius, clearly implies that some dif- 
ference existed between his edition and the revisal of 
St. Athanasius. This supposition is not a little 
confirmed, by the known enmity which subsisted 
between Eusebius and St. Athanasius ^^ ; and by 
the peculiar opinions of the Emperour, which 

xX7jcr»a T« x-ar' l^iocwov ©Tapa^SjiAai'Oj, rara yap /aovou /iz-oi (p^ovnri<s 
r.Vy ia-y(p'ha.}^ov ru7q cvvu^zci, Ta> uhx^u era ^y. tyfot^ocy ^ (ji^ovov OTS 
o» TTifi "Evas^iov sy^aij/av uvru kcct IjaS, y,a,\ ix.va.yy.riV iO-X°* ^'^' ^* ^' 

XE^'.siJiTavTos ocvTif (jLOi xctTaaxevccaaiy rocvra. Z30ir,(jcx.s aTrheiXac. 

" The Benedictine fathers fix the time when S. Athanasius 
revised the Scriptures to the year 340 : Vit. S. Athan. p. xxxiii. 
j 4. and the time when Constantine died to the same year, 
ibid. § 4. 

58 Vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. capp. iii. iv. pp. 82, 83. 

5' S. Epiphan. Haer. Lxviii. p. 723. c. 'ExsAsvo-i ^l [6 Kwvra*- 
Tr>io?] avyxforvi^^yca "Evvo^ov xccrcc rh <i>on/'m'/iv l» Tvfui tjj •nroAw* 

IxiXzvaz oe ^ixa^eiv 'ETaeptov t^j- JLocioxpslocSy y^ a,X>.a<i Ttva?. ' 

*Ev oi? T^v [AOCKOCflrviq YloToifAUV o fjityaq , 'Eufaxuq Tov Efffe/SiOV 

xa9"£^o/x£vov tC) oixa^ovTa, x«* 'A$ava<7»ov Iruta,, xccrocTrovvi^iU tr, 
y.v'itri y.oii oaxpyc-a?, oXcc yUtrcci ^ufd roTq uXriBiaiVf ociriliUscio (pocv^ 
f/Ayoch-n 'Evcrt^lu >iiyuv, 2y KuBl^ri 'tYsrej^ts, xa] 'Ahcx,vcc(7iOS d^coOi 

^v, Tsctpa GH Xfiveixif rU htyy.oi ru 7oiavTot. ; Tavroc, uKtsaxf 

'£yo"£j3io$, ot'lptlxi uiv lU a,yo!,voi>ilr,<Tniy x«i atot^oti ^ithvai to otxarip***' 
Tiiyuv' "Ot* £t Ei'lat'^a JjASere, >£«» 'sxfoi ^jt>i«{ ra toiavra, okv\i>\iyf\s^ 
ocfx »v aX7}9"Ejy^(Ttv ol xarioyopoi j^ptav, i» y«p w^f Tvpaj-jrerrE, woXX^ 



( 133 ) 
leaned in a contrary direction to those of the Bishop 
t)f Cagsarea ^°, whose principles were unquestion- 
ably warped towards Arianism ^^ But one consi- 
deration seems to put the matter out of dispute : had 
not Eusebius's edition laboured under some impu- 
tation '^ the demand of the Emperour might have 
been supplied, and that edition, which had been 
published but a few years before, might have been 
multiplied to any given extent, by transcribing one 
of Eusebius's copies. Now it is important to observe, 
that while the undertaking of St. Athanasius makes 
this breach in the tradition of the Palestine edition : 
it serves to fill up the only breach which exists in 
that of the text of Byzantium : as his revisal sw^- 
ceeded the Palestine text, and partially restored 
the text of Byzantium ^^ It has been already ob- 
served respecting the celebrated Alexandrine manu- 
script, that it was written in Egypt previously to 



«« Vid. supr. p. 110. n.^ 

*' Vid. Epiphan. ibid. p. 723. c. conf. supr. p. 39. n. '°. 

** It is particularly deserving of remark, that a principal 
charge urged against St. Athanasius and his clergj, in the 
Council of Tyre, summoned under Eusebius, was that of having 
burned the Bible, in the church of Ischyras, who was of thlf 
Arianjiiction ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p. 64. I. 
10. 0» ^e [-sTEpt 'Ey(7£/3iov] pt/fffi Tw Z5pos *A3"ava<Tiov ^t^olaj ^\v 

xo9r?5 «|«a Tifj.ijcronf h* xarviyopiav h<;rnazl<x.i xacroi AS'avoo'/w, 
«rpo(p«c7ii' >^ufA^xvotlti oW 'iff^^^oiq \'jr\a.T\i\o* i(p^[ji,it,e yoi^ uf iVrj rec 
^uv^Hvec i| l(p6^8 TffevovBut;' v.a,) o Ma>i«§»o; ilair'n^ria-at; ilq to ^vaiaa- 

r» Upac ^i^Xloc xocli}<.a.vas. 

^^ Vid. supr. p. 123. n. *^ conf. p. 131. n. '*. 



( 134 ) 

the year 567 *^. It remains to be observed, that as 
St. Athanasius returned to Alexandria from banish- 
ment in the year 338 ^^ on the death of the elder 
Constantine ; and had revised the text of Scripture, 
in the year 340, under the Emperour Constans, 
and his brother the younger Constantine ; he con- 
tinued, w^ith the intermission of a few months, to 
govern the Alexandrine church, from the year 367 
to the year 373, under the Emperour Valens ^^. It 
is of small importance to my present object, to cal- 
culate the chances, whether this celebrated manu- 
script contains St Athanasius's revisal of the sacred 
text ; of which it must be however remembered, 
that it was written, not merely in the last-mentioned 
period, but in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But 
as it cannot be reasonablv denied that his revisal 
was within the reach of the copyist, who has exe- 
cuted the task of transcription in a manner which is 
expensive and accurate ; it must be observed, that 
Thecla has left unquestionable evidence in the 
manuscript itself of having been biassed by the in- 
fluence of the Patriarch ; as she has inserted, in 
the book of Psalms, the epistle of St. Athanasius, 
addressed to Marcellinus ^^ I profess myself at a 

** Vid. supr. p. nn. =^7. et ^\ 

^^ Patr. Benedd. Vit. S. A than. p. xxx § 1. 

" lid. ib. p. Ixxxv. § 2, 3. 

*7 Vid. Woid. Praef. in Cod. Alex. Sect. IV. § 47. p. x. The 
learned editour adds the following apology, for this circum- 
stance ; ibid. " Qui itaque his honoribus Athanasium afficie- 
bant; cur uon etmm Psalmis Prologum ejus, omnium ccstima- 
tione di^nissimum adderenl ? Si quis orationem Gregorii Nazian- 
zeni in laudem Athanasii legent, is hoc factum fuisse non con- 



( 135 ) 

loss to divine by what means the inference which 
follows from those facts can be evaded ; or how the 
conclusion is to be disproved, that this manuscript 
approximates to the revisal of St. Athanasius. As- 
suming* this point as manifest^ it directly throws the 
testimony of the Patriarch on the side of the By- 
zantine text; as this text is adopted in the Gospels 
of the Alexandrine manuscript, which clearly con- 
stitute the principal part of the better half of the 
Canonical Scriptures. Much might be advanced in 
favour of this hypothesis, from the history of St. 
Athanasius; who, if he possessed no suspicion of 
foul play, felt no motives of personal dislike in re- 
jecting the text of Eusebius, might have been in- 
fluenced in choosing that of Lucianus for the basis 
of his text, as his edition was to be published at 
Constantinople. For thus, as two editions had been 
published in that region, he furnished the different 
parties which divided the Byzantine church, with ait 
edition suited to their respective partialities. Much 
might be advanced to support it, from the known 
prudence and moderation of that great man, who 
ever followed conciliatory measures^ and who must 

cesserit tantum verum etiam contenderit,^* In fact when we 
connect all the circumstances together relative to this matter — 
that Arianism was at tlii.s period prevalent at Alexandria; that 
^t. Athanasius was accused of favouring the destruction of the 
Arian Bibles ; that he revised the sacred text immediately af- 
ter the death of Eusebius ; that his prologue, as explanatory of 
Ps. ii. is directed against the errours of Arius : nothing can be 
more probable than that Thecla inserted it in her copy, either 
with her own hand, or by the hand of a transcriber ; ^'she em- 
ployed one. 



( 136 ) 
have seen the inexpediency and danger of ventur- 
ing, in the infected state of the Eastern Churchy to 
undertake at once the total suppression of Euse- 
bius's edition. While this account affords a con- 
sistent and probable solution of the only difficulty 
which embarrasses the history of a manuscript, 
which varies from all that are known, in having a 
different text in the Gospels and the Acts and Epis- 
tles: the manuscript itself contains an irrefragable 
proof, that within that short period of the death of 
Eusebius in which it was written, the Palestine 
text had begun to be again replaced by the Byzan- 
tine. 

When we advance a step higher in scrutinizing 
the traditionary evidence which supports the au- 
thority of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, the 
apparent force which it appears to possess directly 
yields when it is submitted to the touch. In esta- 
blishing the claims of these texts to an immemorial 
tradition, it is rather fatal to their pretensions that 
we should happen to know the time of their origin. 
The period in which the Egyptian text was pub- 
lished cannot be antedated to the age of Hesy- 
chius ; as that in which the Palestine was published 
cannot be antedated to the age of Eusebius ^^. 
That both these editours made some innovations, 
in their respective texts, can scarcely admit of a 
doubt. This is an inference which necessarily fol- 
lows from the consideration of their having pub- 
lished a text, which differed from the vulgar Greek, 

•* Vid. supr. p. 72. n. J7. 



( 13T ) 
or common edition ^^ . It is in fact expressly re- 
corded, that Eusebius published that text of the 
Old Testament, which had been corrected by Ori- 
gen "'' ; and that Hesychius admitted into his text of 
the New Testament ntimerous interpolations'^'. 
Prom such an imputation the text of Lucianus is ob- 
viously free, as he merely repubhsiied the vulgar 
edition '\ The antiquity of his text consequently 
loses itself in immemorial tradition; while that of 
his rivals is bounded by the age of their respective 
revisals. And this assertion^ as I shall soon take 
occasion to prove, is equally applicable to the Ita- 
lick version, which corresponds with the Byzantine 
Greek : and is contained in the Brescia manuscript. 
It must be obvious, of course, that the former cir- 
cumstance as fully confirms the claims of Lucia- 
nus's text to an origin ascending to the apostolical 
age ; as it detracts from the pretensions of Hesy* 
chius and Eusebius's texts to an immemorial tradi- 
tion. True it is that St. Jerome seems to pass an 
indiscriminate censure on the editions of Hesy chius 
and Lucianus 7^ But, granting him to have pos- 
sessed that impartial judgment on this subject"^, 

^^ Ibidem. 

'° Ibidem. 

'^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. '*^ 

7^ Vid. supr. p. 88. n. ^^ 

7^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n.*^°. 

7* St. Jerome not only innovated in revising the Septuagint^ 
but ejcpressly followed the steps of Origen and Eusebius, who 
were the rivals of Lucianus ; Vid. supr. p. S^. n. ''^. S. Hier. 
ProcEm. Dan. Tom. IV. p. 495. " Sed et Origenes de Theodo- 
tioiiis opere in Editione Vidgata asteriscos posuit; docens de- 



{ 13S ) 

which is necessary to give weight to his sentence ; 
yet when we come to compare St. Jerome with him- 
self; when we come to estimate^, how much of his 
censure is directed against the vulgar edition of the 
Old Testament, which Lucianus republished ; and 
when we ascertain the standard by which he judged 
of the imaginary corruptions of the New Testa- 
ment, which the same learned person revised ; we 
shall directly discern, that his opinion does not in 
the least aftect the question under discussion ^^ 

From a view of this subject, as well from the 
positive testimony which supports the Greek Vul- 
gate, as that whicli invalidates the pretensions of 
the Egyptian and Palestine editions, we may sum- 
marily conclude, tliat, the genuine text of the New 
Testament, if it is at all preserved in the three edi- 
tions which have descended to our times, can be 
only conceived to exist in that of Byzantium. 

11. On reviewing the testimony which the Wes- 
tern Church, when examined apart, bears to the 
integrity of the text of Scripture, it affords the 
fullest confirmation to that borne by the separate 
testimony of the Eastern. On the weight and im- 
portance of the latter of these witnesses, I have al- 

faisse qucp addlta sunt, et rursus quosdam versus obells pracno- 
tavit, swperjlua quceqiie designans. Cumqiie omnes Christi ec- 
clesise, tarn Graecorum quam Latinorum, S)^rorumque et 
^gyptiorum, banc sub asteriscis et obells Editionem legant ; 
igrioscaiit invidt labori men qui volui habere nostros quod Graeci 
in Aquilcfi et Theodotionis ac Synimachi editione lectitant/' 
Conf; Tonn III. Ep. crv. p. S10. 

ii pn this subject I shall have an opportuiiity of sneaking at 
large Lercafter. 



( 139 ) 

ready offered a remark, deduced from the circum- 
stance of the Western Church having" retained the 
faith uncorrupted, while the Oriental Church wiis 
infected with the Arian opinions "*. A minute ex- 
amination of this evidence, wUi very clearly evinc e 
that it rests on the side of the Byzantine text, in- 
stead of the Egyptian or Palestine. 

The first argument, which may be urged ftom 
hence, in support of the integrity of the Greek \ ul- 
gate, is deducible from the text of the Brescia ma- 
nuscript. Of the author of this version we know 
nothing" ; though it is remarkable for its extraordi- 
nary fidelity to the orig-inai Greek. We are, on 
the other hand, perfectly acquainted with the 
framers of the text of the Vulgate and Verccli ma- 
nuscript^"^, which correspond v/ith the Palestine 
and Egyptian editions. Now, such is the result, 
wiiich would precisely take place, had the fore-cited 
text derived its authority from the silent admission 
of the church, deduced from the primitive ages ; 
while the latter were expressly acknowledged as 
recent translations, from the time of their first pub- 
lication. It is obvious, of course, that if the testi- 
mony of the Latin church, derived from immemo- 
rial tradition, be preserved in any of those versions, 
it must exclusively exist in the Brescia manuscript. 
And as this manuscript accords with the Vulgar Greek, 
it clearly proves, that the immemorial testimony 
of the Western Ciiurch is on tlie side ef this text. 



'^ Vid. supr. p. 110. u. \ 

77 Vid. supr. p. 15. n. ^''. p. 59. n. 



( 140 ) 

'^-hich tve have already seen is similarly siipp(!wrted 
by the testimony of the Eastern. 

Nay, more than this, it may be shewn, that the 
bare undertaking- of St. Eusebius Vercellensis to 
revise the Old Italick version not only subverts the 
authority of his own text, but that of Hesychius 
and Eusebius's edition : and, of consequence, ne- 
gatively supports the authority of the text of Lu- 
cianus. 

That the original version of the Latin Church 
had retained its integrity uncorrupted, until the 
times of Pope Julius and St. Eusebius of Ver- 
celi, is evident : from the external testimony of Hi- 
lary ; from the circumstances in which the Wes- 
tern Church was placed ; and from the inter- 
nal evidence of tiie version in question. It is Hi- 
lary's express declaration that many of the copies 
of this version retained their purity untainted^ even 
to his own times ; having been preserved not merely 
by the integrity of the earliest ages, but by their 
very inability to pervert or correct the primitive 
translation '^^. And this declaration is completely 
confirmed by the history of the Eastern and West- 
ern Churches, neither of which were sufficiently 
instructed in the languages spoken by both to un- 
dertake a revisal ^9. But what renders this fact of 
importance, is, that however the copies of the La- 
tin version vary among themselves, they preserve a 
conformity to some edition of the Greek original. 
The first considerable variety in these copies must 

78 Vid. supr. p. 57. n. *^ 

79 Vid. supr. p. 57. n. ^K 



( 141 ) 
be of course dated from the first revisal of the text 
by St. Eusebius^ of Verceli ; since before him^ there 
was not a person sufficiently informed^ to undertake 
the correction of the Italick translation. 

Now it is clearly implied in the circumstance of 
St. Eusebius's undertaking to correct the current 
translation, that this translation must have differed 
from the ordinari/ Greek text, and from his own 
corrected Latin version : otherwise his attempt 
must have been without an object from the first, 
and without effect at the conclusion. As he under- 
took his revJsal at the command of Pope Julius, who 
came to the Pontificate in the year 337 ^° ; the or^ 
dinary Greek text was obviously contained in the 
edition of Eusebms of Ceesarea, who lived, after 
this period, until the year 340 ^\ It is, of course, 
manifest, that the received text of Eusehius did not 
correspond with the Latin version in Pope Julius's 
age ; and is consequently destitute of the primitive 
testimony of the Latin Church, as contained in the 
authorised Latin version. 

It is equally clear that the original Latin version 
did not agree with the text of Hesychius. As St. 
Eusebius has unquestionably adhered to the edition 
of the latter, in revising the Latin translation ; hia 
undertaking to correct the one by the other, neces- 
sarily implies, that a difference at first subsisted be- 
tween them. It is consequently clear that the text 
nf Hesi/chius is equally destitute of the primitive 

^'' Vid. Patrr. Benedd. in Vit. S. Athanas. p. xxx. § 1. a, 
<*Vid. supr.p. 1S2, n.58. 



( 143 ) 

tcstimon}^ of the Latin Church, as the text of Eu- 
scbius of Caesarea. And as the corrected version 
of St. Euscbius when the proposed alterations were 
made, must have differed from the original transla- 
tion which remained uncorrected ; it is apparent 
that the Corrected Version also must have equally 
wanted the testimony of the primitive Western 
translation. 

As St. Jerome's revisal was not yet made, the 
question now rests with that version of the Old Ita- 
lick translation, wliich corresponds with the Byzan- 
tine Greek ; and which consequently must have 
been identical with the primitive version. 

But here it may be objected, that St. Eusebius's 
undertaking" to correct the translation by the original, 
equally proves that the former differed from Lucia- 
nus's text, as we have seen it differed from the text 
of Eusebius Ca?sariensis. But if this objection is 
not rendered null by this positive fact, that there is 
a third version, different from the revisals of St. 
Eusebius and St. Jerome, and confessedly more an- 
tient than that of the latter ^' ; and that, while it 
is apparently uncorrected ^\ it literally corres- 
ponds with the Byzantine Greek ^* ; it would ad- 
mit of the following obvious solution. St. Euse- 
bius undertook his revisal of the Latin version, not 
merely when the Received Text of the Greek was 
contained in Eusebius's edition ; but when this edi- 



^^ Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 

^^ Vid. supr. pp. 90, 91, 92. 



^* Vid. supr. p. G3. sqq. 



( 143 ) 
tlon had, by the royal mandate, superseded the 
JByzantine text at Constantinople. It might not, 
therefore, have been safe^^' for Pope Julius to au- 
thorise a version wliich was not merely different 
from the Received Text of the Greeks, but coin- 
cident with the edition whicii it had superseded. 
And this change took place after that greatest per- 
secution of the Church, which occurred under Dio- 
clesian and Maximian : in which the sacred Scrip- 
tures were sought with more care and destroyed 
with more fury than in any preceding persecu- 
tion ^^. It was therefore possible, considering the 
degraded state of the Church, and the disastrous 
situation of the bishop of Verceli, that a correct 
copy of Lucianus's edition was not within the reach 
of Eusebius Verccllensis. It is probable that, in 
his choice of Ilesychius's edition, in correcting the 
Latin version, he was influenced not merely by in- 
clination ^", but necessity. It is certain, that, in 

«5 That the Emperours were not to be trifled with on this sub- 
ject is evident from the severe penalty ro which even the pos- 
sessour of Arius's works was subject, by a decree of one of the 
mildest of the Christian princes; Epist. Constant, an. Socrat. 

Hist. Eccl. Lib, I. cap. ix. p. 32. 1. 3. 'Ez^vo ^Mlo^ ^^^cayof.va;, 
uq %i Ttg cv'{y^a,^^^cc W Ap^a <Tvi\ayh (pcofaBny, xp6-^ct:, kou ^), 
ivBtuq ^foc-'cvcyy.uv 'SV^) nuluvu^.u^r,^ fdTij ^xvocT'tq ■ IVat V (-/^ixicc' 
's:a.fa.xfriixa ya,^ <Ia«? IttI Ti?r<i', xcpa,-.iK);j/ vTroTiaycn Tii^Lcopiai; 

2^ Vid. supr. p. 27. n. '^. 

^^ St. Eusebius was a corrector of Scripture, and, in his ear- 
lier days, a reader and imitator of Eusebius, whose critical ta- 
lents he admired; S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Tom. I. p. 130. It is not 
improbable that he imbibed througli him some share of the dis- 
taste to the Greek Vulgate, which was common to all the dis- 



( 144 ) 
the state of the Greek Churchy there existed ^ suf* 
ficient cause to deter him from following the copies 

ciples of Ongen*s school; Id. S. Aug. Ep. Ixxxix. Tom. III. 
p. 319: and that he thus chose Hesychius, instead of Lucia- 
iius, when he was prevented by other motives besides his friend- 
ship for St. Athanasius and P. Julius, from following Eusebius 
of Csesarea: Vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. capp. v. vi. vii. 
p. 176. Conf. Lib. IL capp. xv. xxiii. p. 92. 109. Hesychius 
certainly receded farther from the Greek Vulgate than Lucianus ; 
vid. supr. p. 88. n. ^^ p. 72. n. ^^ And Eusebius Vercellensis, 
as a follower of Origen, must have held the Greek Vulgate in 
low estimation ; of which, and of St. Eusebius, St. Jerome 
speaks in the following terms; Hier. S. Aug. Ep. ub. supr. 
p. 319. " Omnes veteres tractatoreSy qui nos in Domino pra- 
cesserant, et qui Scripturas sanctas interpretati sunt, &c. — 
maxime in explanatione Psalmorum — quos apud Grsecos inter- 
pretati sunt multis voluminibus, pritmis Origenes, secundus Euse- 
bius C^sariensis — apud Latinos autem, Hilarius Pictaviensis et 
Eusebius Vercellensis episcopus Originem et Eusebium transtuh' 

^■unU Ego enim non tam vetera aholere, quae linguae meae 

hominibus emendata de Grceco in Latinum transtuli, quam ea 
festimojiiafquse a Judceis p-cetermissa suntvel corrupta, pro/erre 
in medium : ut scirent nostri, quid Hebraica Veritas contineret. 
Si cui legere non placet, nemo compellit invitum." Conf. 
Praef. in Pentat. Tom. HI. p. 340. Such were the predilections 
of Eusebius Vercellensis, and such the object of a true disciple 
of the school of Origen ; to verify by the Hexapla the quota- 
tions from the Old Testament, which were found in the New, 
though not discoverable in the Vulgar Edition o£ the Septuagint, 
Now, if it can be shewn, that Hesychius followed this plan, and 
revised the New Testament by the Hexapla, while Lucianus, 
merely preserved the readings of the Vulgar Edition oi the Sep^ 
tuagint; and if it will appear, that Ewse^/za Vercellensis io\\o\ve A 
the former in correcting the Old Italick translation, we shajl 
have thus clearly ascertained one cause of the preference which 
was given by him to the text of Hesychius over that of 
Lucianus. Thus much, however, ma;y^, I conceive, be clearly 



( 145 ) 

of the authorised edition. That Church was then 
under the dominion of the Arians^ who were not 
merely suspected in that age of corrupting the 
Scriptures^ but who absolutely expunged a remark- 
able text which St. Eusebius inserted in his revi- 
sal ^^ and otherwise corrupted his version *9. 

shewn from one of the most remarkable quotations from the Old 
Testament, which occurs in the New. In Luc. iv. 18. we find, 
iucraer^ai T«? ervnsr^iiy.[xe»iiq rriv xapS'jav, Rec. which, as the reading 
of the Greek Vulgate, was found mLiicianus's text. The same 
passage, however, occurs verbatim in the Scptiiagint, Is. Ixi. 1, 
ioi(rcia^eci Ttf? o"yvT£Tgt/x/y,Hv»? rviv xap^iotn ; and is consequently ren- 
dered, in the antient Vulgar Translation, lb. Ixi. 1. *' Sanare 
contritos corde." But the phrase, Iciaxa-^ai ra? crvyTsr^ifjiixsviii 
rriv xa^^tai/, is not conformable to the Hebrew, iV nitt^J^ irnnV ; 
this phrase was consequently noted in Origen's Hexapla, as not 
being synonymous with the original. Hence, in the Cambridge 
MS. which contains Hesychius's text, this phrase is omitted 
conformably to the text of the Hexapla ; and the same obser- 
vation applies to the Verceli MS. which contains St. Eusebius*s 
text, in which this text is also omitted. But in the Brescia 
MS. (which, as containing the Original Latin Version, pos- 
sesses a text that was made 'previously to Origen's Hexapla,) 
we read, conformably to the vulgar text of the Septiiagint ; 
Ibid. iv. 18. " Sanare contritos corde.'* The grounds of Hesy- 
chius's partiality to the former reading will be revealed in the 
sequel : the cause is apparent which induced St. Eusebius to 
give it the preference; and it must be obvious, that a few read- 
ings of this kind would give him, as a disciple of Origen, a mean 
opinion of the original Latin Version, and a high opinion of the 
text of Hesychius ; and would consequently lead him to correct 
the one by the other. 

^ Blanchin. Prolegg, in Evang. Quadrupl. p. 62. " Ante- 
quam vero tollatur manus e tabula, unicum saltern laudati Co- 
dicis [Verc] locum recitemus, quern Ariani eo tempore quo 
Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiara armis exercituque occu- 
paverat, ^Valente et Ursacio Ecclcsiam Siruiiensem incursanti" 



( 146 ) 

In fact^ when all these circumstances arc taken 
Uiio account^ the history of the Latin version^ which 

bus) de sacro Joannis Evangelio punienda nianu siisiuleruntf 
(nempe vers. 6. cap. iii.) Hoc enim flagitium, quoniam depre- 
hensum fuit circa annum reparatae salutis 357, miram Euse- 
biani Codicis antiquitatem ostendit, atque inolitae traditioni 
addit maximum pondus authoritatis. Legebatur nempe in 
laudato, cap. iii. * Evangelii secundum Joannem,* vers. 6. 
* Quod natum est de came caro est, ^uia de came natum est ; 
et jquod natum est de Spiritu Spiritus est, quia Deus Spiritus 
e&t et ex_ Deo natus e^t,' ut adhuc in Vercellensi Codice habetur* 
Sed impii homines ea verba * quoniam Deus Spiritus est,' dolo 
ac fraude ex omnibus Sacris voluminibus erasere ; ut discimus a 
S. Ambrosio — in libro de Spiritu Sancto," &c. Vid. S. Ara- 
bros. de Sp. Sanct. Lib. III. cap. x. § 59. col. 676. This text, 
however, is but Joh. iii. 6. with a gloss of Tertullian, de Cam. 
Christ, cap. xviii. p. 308. which S. Cyprian, Concil. Carthag. 
p. 231. had repeated, after Nemesian, Bishop of Thibunis; 
and which was probably considered, on account of the repe- 
tition, an Erased text of Scripture, when the Arians fell under 
a suspicion of corrupting the sacred text; and as such was re» 
instated by St. Eusebius in his revisal of the Old Italick Ver- 
sion. In vindication of St. Eusebius, it may be observed, that 
instances occur of texts similarly repeated by Origen after his 
master Clement, which even M. Griesbach believed genuine ; 
and has consequently inserted them in his Corrected Text. 

^3 Such is the Verona MS. published by M. Blanchini, which, 
independent of the alteration of John iii. 6. as corrected by St. 
Eusebius, vid. supr. n. ^^. possesses internal evidence of being^an 
heretical revisal of St. Eusebius's text. It is a curious fact, that 
the authour of this MS. not less than St. Eusebius, adopted a 
text from Tertullian de Cam. Christ, but which originally pro- 
ceeded from the Valentinians. The original Italick Version 
reads in Joh. i. 13. ** qui non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate 
carnis neque ex. voluntate viri, sed ex Tieo nati sunty^ Brix; 
winch words, with the single correctioi? oUanguine to sangninibuSf 
after al^okTuv in the original, St. Eusebius retained in his revi- 



( 147 ) 

is otherwise involved in inextricable confusion^ di- 
rectly ceases to be perplexed ; and all the inci- 
dents detailed in it naturally arrange themselves in 
a clear and consistent order. 

The destruction of the Byzantine edition^ under 
Dioclesian, made way for the edition of Eusebius, 
at Constantinople, and rendered a new supply of 
copies of the Latin version necessary to the West- 
ern Churches. As the first intercourse cultivated 
by the Eastern and Western Churches, which in- 
troduced the latter to a knowledge of the Greek, 
was during the apostacy of the former to the Arian 
heresy: the first endeavour to supply this defect 
produced a comparison between this version and the 
original, as it existed in the authorized text of Euse- 

sal. But in the Verona MS. we read, ibid. " Qui non ex san- 
guine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed 
ex Deo natus est." On this subject, Tertullian, reasoning against 
the Valentinians, observes, ibid. cap. xix. p. 308. *' Quid est 
ergo, * non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex 
voluntate viri, sed ex Deo natus est,* Hoc quidem capitulo e^o 
fotius utar quum adulteratores ejus obduxero. Sic enim sciiptum 
esse contendunty non ex sanguine nee ex carnis voluntate, nee ex 

viri sed ex Deo Jiatus est. Intelligimus ergo ex concubitii 

7iativitatem Domini negatam.** What the Evangelist had gene- 
rally applied to the new birth of the regenerate, the hereticks 
applied to the nativity of our Lord; by changing " nati sunt'* 
into " natus est.'" The Valentinian from the negation in " ?^o;^ 
ex sanguine neque ex voluntate canzf-j— natus est,'* disproved 
the incarnation ; and the Arian, from the degradation of *' the 
only begotten Son," to the rank of those sons who are a'Hopted 
through Christ, disproved the divinity of our Lord. These 
readings of Joh. i. 13. iii. 6. will sufficiently reveal the true 
character of the Verona MS. which possesses several of th^ 
same heretical stamp. 



( 1*8 ) 
bius CaesariensiSj which excited suspicions of the 
fidehty of the translation. This discovery must of 
course have awakened the vigilance of the Western 
Church, which during- this period preserved its or- 
thodoxy : and P. Juhus, who then occupied the pa- 
pal chair, was consequently induced to employ St, 
Eusebius to revise the authorised version. The do- 
mination, however, of the Arian heresy at this pe- 
riod, prevented St. Eusebius from correcting the 
translation by the received text of the Greek Church, 
which had been published by Eusebius of Caesarea : 
and as he could not readily obtain a copy of Lucia- 
nus's text, and as he obtained one of Hesychius'8 
with ease^^, he consequently followed the text of the 
latter, in forming his version. 

The influence of this emendation of the Latin 
version is directly perceptible in the greater number 
of the copies of the Italick translation; as they 
chiefly conform to the revisal of St, Eusebius, which 
now formed the authorized text of the Western 
Churches. So general was this influence, that, pro- 
bably on account of it, we retain but one specimen 
of the antecedent translation, which is contained in 
the Brescia manuscript: for which, we are most 

^^ How very general the copies of Eusebius of Caesarea were 
in St. Jerome's age, may be collected from the declaration or 
the latter ; supr. p. 35. n. ^^. That Eusebius, of Verceli, might 
have obtained copies of Hesychius's text, previously to his exile 
in the Thebais, may be collected from the intercourse, which 
P. Julius maintained with the Alexandrine Church ; Vid. Epist» 
Jul. ad Alexandrinn. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II, cap. xxiii. 
p. lll.sqq; 



( 149 ) 

probably indebted to Philastrius Brixiensls. This 
conjecture will be doubtless admitted^ when the age 
and character of this text are taken into account, 
together with the consideration of the place in which 
it is founds and of the learning and authority of Phi- 
lastrius^ who was bishop of Brescia 9°. Whatever 
opinion be formed on this subject, it is apparent that 
the Latin Church lost all confidence in the antient 
version^ on the publication of an amended text by 
Eusebius Vercellensis. The influence of his edi- 
tion is directly apparent in the works of St. Hi- 
lary ^^ who was the friend and companion of the 

^° The authour of a work on the Antient Heresies, which is 
inserted in Bibhothec. Patrr. Tom. IV'. p. 596. sqq. ed. Colon. 
Agrip. 1618. He flourished, under the Emperour Theodosius, 
A.D. 381. and is mentioned in the following terms by St. 
Augustine; Epist. ad Quodv. Tom. II. c. 818. a. *' Philastrius 
quidam Brixiensis Episcopus, quern cum Sancto Ambrosio 
Mediolani etiam ipse vidi, scripsit hinc librum, necillas haereses 
praetermittens, quae in populo Judaeorum fuerunt ante adventum 
Domini." When we take into account the learning and ortho- 
doxy of this antient father, and compare the peculiar omissions 
of the Brescia MS. vid. supr. p. 92. n. '°'. with the description 
given of the copies rectified by the orthodox in the time when 
he lived, vid. supr. p. 93. n. '°^ ; it is highly probable, that the 
text of this MS. which has been preserved at Philastrius's 
Church, is that of the Antient Latin Version, which he accom- 
modated to the orthodox copies, by omitting the suspected 
passages: vid. infr. p. 152. n. ^°°. 

5' Sabat. Bibl. Ital. Monit. in Vet. Ev. Int. Tom. III. p xxxiv. 
" Quid plura ; versiculi Evangeliorum, quales in SS, Patrum 
vohminibus laudantur, maxime in Hilarii scrij^tis, tales leguntur 
iisdemque verbis in Codice Colbertino; nee ulla est descre- 
pantia, si quando aliqua occurrit, quae non alicujus antiqui 
lioctoris testimonio possit confirmari. Quod argumento esse 



( 150 ) 

bishop of Verceli^^; and who has quoted from his 
edition^ in the whole of his theological writings. 
The quotations of Tertullian and Cyprian^ which 
differ from this version^ and yet accord with the 
Greeks contain a sufficient proof that they used a 
different translation 9^ 

From the publication of St, Eusebius's revisal, 
we are to date the origin of the varieties which were 
soon introduced into the Western version. The 
Latin Church now possessed^ in the primitive and the 
corrected edition^ two translations ; and these soon 
generated a multitude of others^ through various 
unskilful attempts to accommodate the old translation 
to the new, and frequently to adapt it to the Greek 
original. Of the manuscripts of this kind^ we pos- 
sess a specimen in the Codex Veronensis, which has 
been published by M. Blanchini. It is manifestly 
formed on the basis of St. Eusebius's version ^"^ ; but 
has been revised and corrected throughout^ by the 
original text of Hesychius. 

debet, eo Codice illam contineri Scripturae interpretationem 
qua usi sunt antiqui scriptores : hcpc autem non alia est quam 
Vetus Vulgata^ Conf. Blanchin. Ev. Quadr. P. I. p. 70. sqq. 

5^ Vid. supr. p. 54. n. '\ p. 58. n. ^^ 

^^ Thus much is in substance confessed by P. Simon, Hist. 
Crit. du Nouv. Test. chap. vi. p. 67. " Pour ce que est de 
Tertullien et de Cyprien, bien qu'ils ne rapporfent pas precise- 
merit les mots de I'ltalique, parce qu'ils consultoient le Grec, 
Us la suivent pour ce qui est da sens.^' 

^* It is printed in parallel columns with the Verceli MS. ia 
M. Blanchini's Evangeliarium Quadruplex ; and so exactly 
agrees with it, in the general tenour of the text, that we can 
constantly supply, from the one manuscript, those passages or 
parts of word^ which time has obliterated in the other. 



{ 151 ) 

Such was the state in which, at the distance of 
half a century, the Latin version was found by St. 
Jerome, who describes it as containing* nearly aa 
many different texts as different copies 9^. It was 
merely a matter of accident, that he was brought up 
with a dislike for the vulgar edition of the Greek, 
and with a predilection for the corrected text of Eu- 
sebius ; having imbibed an early partiality for this 
edition, through Gregory of Nazianzum '^^. And as 
it was natural, so it is unquestionable, that he took 
it as the standard, by which he judged of the merit 
of other texts; without suspecting that he was mea- 
suring by a line of which he had not ascertained the 
positive dimensions. The result is, that he was 
hence led to underrate the edition of Lucianus, not 
less than that of Hesychius^^: and consequently to 
allow neither their due weight, when he was re- 
vising the text of the Latin translation. Still, how- 
ever, uninclined to feel or profess an open partiality 
to the edition of Eusebius Caesarensis ; whose text 
had been certainly revised by the orthodox in the 
same age, among whom we cannot include the ce- 
lebrated bishop of Caesarea^^: his specifick object 
was to adhere to no particular text, but to follow the 
antient copies of the original. Under this view he 
also, not less than St. Eusebius, overlooked the cor 
pies of Lucianus's edition^ as modern. For the 

®5 Vid. supr. p. 15. n. *°. 
^* Vid. supr. p. 83. n. ''. 
^' Vid. supr. 100. n. ^^°. 

^^ Vid. S, Epiphan, Hser. Lxviii. p. 723. d. Conf. ut swpr. 
p. 93. n '°^ 



( 15^ ) 
Greek Vulgate having been partly destroyed under 
Dioclesian^ and superseded under Constantine'^^ it 
was not again restored until the reign of Theodo- 
sius'°°; when it quietly reinstated itself, on the ex- 
tinction of the party^ which supported the Corrected 
iText of Eusebius. 

Under these circumstances, the celebrated Latin 
Vulgate was composed, which the Roman Church 
has now adopted as its authorised version. Not- 
withstanding the high reputation of St. Jerome, 
aided by the authority of P. Damasus, it was but 
slowly adopted by the Western Churches, which 
still persevered in retaining the primitive version. 
As St. Jerome's reputation in Greek literature was 
however deservedly great, considerable use was made 
of his corrected text, in bringing the old Italick ver- 
sion to a closer affinity with the original. The in- 
fluence of the Vulgate on that version is conse- 
quently perceptible, to a greater or lesser degree, 
in all the more modern copies. Even the Brescia 
and Verceli manuscripts have not wholly escaped 

'5 Vi(L supr. p. 27. n. *\ p. 26. n. 44. 

'°° The date of this event may be fixed to the final subver- 
sion of the Arian authority, under Theodosius, A. D. 381 : 
when the Catholicks were reinstated in their churches ; vid. 
supr. p. 29. n. ^^. A Council convened, at this time, in Con- 
stantinople, introduced a new order of affairs, with a new 
Bishop. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap, viii. p. 268. 1. 39. 

a^Ttf 'jrlric^^i ffvyKuMT, sTrt to yfoitvicci riiv ly l^tKCcia, m^iv, x^ 
y^u^orovncroci tv) Kuvs-avr'na ttoXe* I'rriax.o'Kovy y., T. I. Conf. Sozom. 

Lib. VII. capp. vii. ix. pp. 285. 288. Theodor. Lib. V. capp. 
vii. viii. pp. 200, 201, 



( 153 ) 
alteration ; though they have been corrected in such a 
manner as to preserve the original readings *°\ The 
Corbeian manuscript^ which has been pubhshed with 
them, has been however more systematically cor- 
rected by St. Jerome's text'°\ Of the four manu- 
scripts, which constitute the Evangeliarium Quadru- 
plex of M, Blanchini, which, it is curious to observe, 
contains specimens of the principal varieties of the 
old Italick translation, the Verona manuscript is 
alone free from the influence of the Vulgate of 
Jerome '"^^ 

In this confused and unsettled state, the Western 
version continued, for more than a century, until the 
times of Cassiodorus. Of the effectual method which 
he took to settle the authorised version, by wholly 
superseding the old translation, and establishing the 
Vulgate of Jerome, I have already expressed myself 
at large on a former occasion * °''-. V^ith what suc- 



101 
104 



Vid. supr. p. 92. n. "^. vid. Infr. n. '°\ 
Blanchln. Evang. Quadrupl. P. I. f. cclxiv. *' Exhibe- 
mus hie Codicem vetustissimura Corbejensis Monasterii n. 195. 
sexto sseculo descriptum Romanis Uteris, in quo vacabula per- 
saepe nullo discrimine sejunguntur. Cum autem eo Codice 
uterentur in Ecclesia, ut ex eo Evangelium in missa canerent, 
hinc persaepe fit, presertim in Matthaeo, ut interpolationes occur- 
rantf quibus codex simillimus effceretur Viilgatce ex Hieronymiana 
Versione, Eae tamen correctiones nullo negotio dignoscuntur, 
turn ex atramento, turn ex literarum forma." Vid. supr. p. 20. 
n. 35. 

'^^ Id. ibid. P. II. f. dlxxvi. " Antiquam Latinam Italam 
Versionem quatuor Evangeliorum repraesentat [Cod. Veronens.] 
cum nativis lineamentis suis; estque nidlibi — ad Hieronymianam 
emendationem exacta^ 

*°* Vid. supr. p. 16, 17. 



( loi } 

cess his efforts were crowned, may be collected from 
the general prevalence of this text which he ren- 
dered the authorised version. So universally has 
it obtained, that if some copies of the old Italick had 
jiot been preserved as relicks, or on account of the 
beautiful manner in which they were executed *°^ 
we should probably possess no specimens of this ver- 
sion, but those which accord with the corrected text 
of St. Jerome. 

This brief sketch of the history of the Latin ver- 
sion, to which it is necessary to attend, in order to 
appreciate the testimony borne by the Latin Church 
to the integrity of the sacred text, is completely con- 
firmed by the internal evidence of the version itself. 
And this evidence, when heard fully out, ends in 
establishing" the following important conclusions : — 
That the purest specimen of the old Italick transla- 
tion is that Avhich is preserved in the Brescia manu- 
script; that consequently, as the Byzantine text, 
which accords with it, must be that from which this 
translation was originally made; that text, of course, 
must be of the most remote antiquity, as the Italick 
version was incontestably made in the earliest ages 
of the Church. 

In order to substantiate these points, I shall begin 
with the investigation of the text of the Vulgate; as 
in constituting the last version of the Latin Churchy 
it necessarily inherits the peculiarities of those ver- 
sions by which it was preceded. As St. Jerome has 
spoken of the state of the Latin text as it existed iii 



( 155 ) 

his times^ with fulness and precision ; and^ as it is 
implied in the principles of the scheme which it is 
my object to establish, that the three classes of that 
iextj including his own version^ exist even at the 
present day, as he has described them : it ought to 
folio Wj that what he has delivered on the subject of 
these texts which were before him, should agree 
with the copies which we retain. If therefore it 
will be found, on experiment, that what he has 
delivered on the subject of the Latin translation, is 
literally verified in that translation as it remains at 
this day ; the result will surely constitute as decisive 
a confirmation as can be required of the solidity of 
the foundation on which my whole system is built. 
On separating St. Jerome's new translation from 
the tvv .7 versions which remain, there will be then 
little difficulty in proving, that the Brescia manu- 
script contains the text, out of which the other ver- 
sions were formed. 

1. The general description which St. Jeromfe 
gives of the Latin copies existing in his times, repre- 
sents them as having the Gospels interpolated from 
each other *°^. The edition which principally pre- 
vailed in St. Jerome's age, was that of Eusebius 

*°^ S. Hier. Praef. in. iv. Evangg. Tom. VI. p. i. « Mag- 
nus siquidem hie in nostris Codicibus error inolevit, dum quod 
in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus 
putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius alitor 
expressit, iUe qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus 
exewplum ccsteros quoque existimaverit emendandos, Unde acci- 
dit, ut apud nos mixta sunt omnia, et in Marco plura Lucse et 
Matthaei, rursus in Matthaeo plura Joannis et Marci, et in 
ccsteris reliquorum, qucc aliis propria sunt inveniantur," 



( 156 ) 

Vercellensis. We consequently find, that the Ver- 
celi manuscript accurately accords with this de- 
scription, and exhibits those interpolations in its 
text '°^ 

2. This censure St. Jerome has indiscriminately 
applied to the copies which existed in his age, while 
he speaks of the editions of Lucianus, as well as 
Hesychius '°^ We infallibly know the standard by 
which he condemned them; as we possess, in his 
own Vulgate the pure text, pruned from these redun- 
dancies. But on collating the Brescia manuscript 
with the Vulgate, we find the latter attributes read- 
ings to one Evangehst, which the Brescia manu- 

'°' The proof of this assertion may be taken from Dr. Mills's 
general description of the Cambridge MS. infr. n. "^ which 
harmonizes -with the Verceli MS. in an extraordinary manner. 
The following quotation, taken from Luk. xiv. 8, 9, 10. and in- 
serted in the Verceli and Cambridge MSS. after Mat. xx. 28. 
will evince the coincidence existing between these MSS. and 
exemplify the declaration of St. Jerome ; " Vos autem quaeritis 
de pusillo crescere, et de majore minores esse. Intrantes au- 
tem et rogati ad ccenam, nolite recumbere in locis eminen- 
tioribug, ne forte clarior te superveniat, et accedens qui ad 
ccenam vocavit te, dicat tibi ; adhuc deorsum accede, et ccn- 
fundaris. Si autem in loco inferiori recubueris, et supervenerit 
humilior te, dicet tibi qui te ad ccenam vocavit : accede adhuc 
superius. Et erit hoc tibi utilius." Verc. ap. Blanchin. Evang. 
Quad. P. I. p. clxiv. We read exclusively in Mat. xxi. 12. 
Et m?nsas numulariorum et cathedras vendentium columbas 
evertit :'* Vulg. but we read in Luk. xix, 45. as well as Mait. 
xxi. 12. Et mensas numulariorum evertit et cathedras venden- 
tium columbas." Verc. These passages also occur, with a 
slight verbal variation, in the Verona MS. 

*°^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. '^ ccnf. p. 155. n. '"^ 



( 157 ) 

script ascribes to i!cCo'^9 So far it verifies St. Je- 
rome's account of the different copies of the Latin 
version, which I suppose to have existed in his aera. 

3. In referring to the very copies before him, St. 
Jerome cites diiferent passages which belonged to 
different texts. He has thus quoted Mat. xi. 23. as 
differently read in his different manuscripts ''°. The 
one reading which he specifies, is, however^ found 
in the Verceli, and the other in the Brescia manu- 
script"'. The text of both is thus almost identi- 
fied with that of the very copies which he col- 
lated. 

4. In citing this peculiar passage, he adopts the 
reading of the Verceli manuscript; and merely 
refers to the Brescia manuscript, as his '' other 

»09 'Yhe following passage is omitted in the correct copies of 
the Vulgate, in Mat. xxiii. 14. but in the Brescia MS. it is in- 
serted, wholly in Mat. xxxiii. 14. and partly in Mark xiu 40. 
Luke XX. 47. " Vae autem vobis Scribae et Phariscei hypo- 
critse, qui devoratis domos viduarum sub obtentu prolixse ora- 
tionis ; propterea sumetis pluriorem damnationem." 

"° In the text of the Vulgate we read ; S. Hier. Com. in 
Matt. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 19, " Et tu Capharnaum mimquid 
usque ad ccelum exaltaberis ? usque in infernum descendes :'* 
in the annexed commentary we read ; ib. *' In altero exemplari 
reperimus ; * Et tu Capharnaum quce usque in ccelum exaltaia 
es, usque in inferna descendes." 

"' Mat. xi. 23. ** Et tu Capharnaum numquid usque in 
ccelum exaltaveris ? aut usque in infernum descendes." Verc, 
*' Et tu Capharnaum, quce usque ad ccelum exaltaveris, usque 
in infernum descendes." Brix. In Luk. x. 15. the Brescia 
MS., approaching still nearer to the Vulgate, reads, « usque 
in coelum.'* 



f 158 ) 

exemplar"*. But he evidently took the received 
text of the age as the basis of his revisal ; and that 
text existed in St. Eusebius' edition. The Verceli 
and Brescia manuscripts^ of consequence, must not 
only agree with his Latin copies, but the former 
contained the received text, the latter the superseded 
edition of St. Jerome's age ; which is precisely con- 
formable to what is assumed as true in the whole of 
the present system. 

5. In speaking of tlie general mass of text, as dis- 
persed in the different copies, which existed in his 
age, he declares that there were nearly as many 
texts as manuscripts"^; yet he admits that some 
of them corresponded with the Greek "'^. It is a 
remarkable fact with respect to the Verceli and 
Brescia manuscript, that while they differ from each 
other more than from the Vulgate, they respectively 
accord with the Greek "^ We of course discover 
the Latin text preserved in these manuscripts, in 
the state in which it existed in the days of St. 
Jerome. 

It is thus, I trust, apparent, that St. Jerome's 

"* Conf. supr. n. "° et ^". 

'^^ S. Hier. ub. supr. p. i. — " verum non esse quod variat 
ctiam maledicorum testimonils comprobatur. Si enim Latinis 
exemplarihus fides est adhibenda respondeant quibus : tot enim 
sunt exemplar ia pene quot codices.'* 

"* Id. ibid. " Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri : ut 
post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam 
arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se 'variant , quae sint ilia quae cum 
Grceca consentiaiit discernam.** 

"^ This will fully appear, on comparing p. 156. n. ***7. with 
p. 177. n. '^\ and p. 157. n. ''9. with p. 186. b, '^\ 



( 159 ) 

account of the Latin translation in his own age, is 
fully verified in the copies which exist at this day. 
It now remains, that we put the above system to the 
kist test; and examine how far the account which 
he has given of his mode of correcting the antient 
version, may be exemplified in the same manu- 
scripts ; which, as we have seen, accord with the 
copies that he apparently used. The Verceli ma- 
nuscript, I have already observed, as it constituted 
the received text, was taken as the basis of his revi- 
sal. On putting it through the process observed 
by St^ Jerome, if the above system be true, it should 
confirm the account which lie has given of his me- 
thod, by furnishing similar readings to those which 
his corrections produced. 

In making this experiment, I shall confine my 
attention principally to the first ten chapters of St. 
Matthew's Gospel"^. Here, if any where, we may 
expect to find the authour's principles accurately 
applied. This portion of Scripture, as including 
the Sermon on the Mount, is obviously among the 
most remarkable and important parts of the Canon, 
and as such undoubtedly laboured by St. Jerome, 

"* As it is necessary to bring these notes within a moderate 
compass, in analysing these ten chapters, I shall confine my 
attention to the Various Readings collected by M. Blanchini, 
and noted in the lower m-argin of his Evang. Quadrupl. As 
that collection has been made without any view to the system 
which it is my wish to establish, and indeed without any know- 
ledge of the classes of text on which is is founded ; and as it is 
my intention to take those readings collectively, as they occur, 
no objection can be made to the selection, as partial, or accom- 
modated to my system. 



( 160 ) 

with the greatest care. And as it occurred at an 
early period of his revisal, before the fatigue at- 
tendant on so long and laborious an undertaking, 
had induced the authour to relax from his original 
design ; it thus promises to furnish a juster specimen 
of his mode of correcting, than any that may be 
selected from his work. 

1. In correcting the antient translation, St. Je- 
rome treated with disregard the editions of Hesy- 
chius and Lucianus"^; as conceiving the Gospels 
in those editions interpolated from each other. 1 
have already stated that his notions of the genuine 
text must be sought in his own version. But on esti- 
mating the Cambridge and Moscow manuscripts"^, 
which contain the text of Hesychius and Lucianus, 
by the standard of the Vulgate, they answer St. Je- 
rome's description ; and appear to be interpolated, 
as he has described them. 

2. In passing over these editions, St. Jerome de- 
clares, that it was his intention to follow the antient 

, "" "7 Vid. supr. p. 100. n. '^^ 

*^^ Dr. Mills, whose notions of the geriuine tex^ were jn most 
cases answered in the Latin Vulgate, delivers himself in the fol- 
lowing terms on the subject of the Canibridge MS. Prolegomm. 
in Nov. Test. n. 1274. " Hujus certe [Cod. Cant.] de quo agi^ 
mus, Graeca quod attinet, vix dici potest quam supra omnem 
modum in iis digerendis licenter se gesserit, ac Jascivierit Inter- 
polator, quisquis jlle, In animo ipsi fuisse prima fronte credi- 
deris, non quidem textum ipsum exhihiere, quem ediderant ipsi 
Evangelistae, sed observato dumtaxat S. Textus ordine ac his- 
toria, singula Evangelia absolutiora ac jphniora reddere. Hue 
enim faciunt mtromiss^ in cujusqtte Evangelii textum jjarticulce 
H^arica integrcegue pei'iodi reliquorumy^ S^c. 



( 161 ) 
copies, in forming his version "'. When we eX* 
cept the editions which he rejected ; by ^''the an- 
tient copies'' he must have meant those which con^ 
tained Eusebius's edition, and the Vulgar Greek ; 
both of which were antient in St. Jerome's estima- 
tion, particularly when compared with the recent 
text of the orthodox revisers. On comparing* St. 
Jerome's Latin copies with Eusebius's Canons, they 
exhibit a redundancy in some places, and a defi- 
ciency in others "°. But on removing the super- 
fluous passages according to Eusebius's text, the 
corrected text agrees with the text of the Vul- 
gate "'. And when a coincidence between the 

"^ S. Hier. ub. supr. p. i. " Igltur haec Praefatiuncula polllce- 
tur quatuor tantum Evangelia, quorum ordo est iste, Mattliaeus, 
Marcus, Lucas, Joannes, Codicum Grcecorum emeiidaia colla* 
tione, sed 'vetertim." 

^" On examining the ma.Tginal reference annexed to Luke 
xiv. 8, we find in the Greek MS S. ^ofi, and in the Latin 177 
X; which intimates, that section clxxvii. of Luke was con- 
tained in Table X. of Eusebius's Canons. But as Table X. con- 
sists of passages found only in one Evangelist, of consequence, 
this section (which is repeated after Mat. xx. 28. in the Verceli 
MS. vid, supr. p. . n. '°/.) was not repeated in Eusebius's edi- 
lion. On examining the marginal reference annexed to Mark 
xii. 40, we find f^r H, and 136 VIII; but as Tab. VIII. con- 
sists of passages in which merely St. Mark and St. Luke corre- 
spond, this section was not found (in Matthew) in Eusebius's 
edition, though found at Matt, xxiii. 13. in the Brescia MS. vid. 
supr. p, 157. n. '°9. 

"* Thus on omitting the section which occurs in the Verceli 
MS. after Matt. xx. 28. and that which occurs in the Brescia 
MS. after Matt, xxiii. 13. vid. supr. n. '^'^. according to Euse- 
bius's edition, as indicated in his Canons, the text, when cor- 
rected, exactly corresponds with that of the Vulgate. 

M 



( m ) 

Vulgar Greek and Latin copies discovered a defi- 
ciency in Eusebius's text ; the version of St. Je- 
rome^ as corrected by the antient copies^ corre- 
sponds with the text of the former '". In both in- 
stances Eusebius's edition and the Greek Vulgate, 
must have represented St. Jerome's antient co- 
pies. 

3. In forming verbal corrections, St. Jerome de- 
clares, that his method was to collate the copies 
of the old translation together^, and when they 
agreed with each other, and with the original 
Greek, to leave the version in the state in which he 
found it '''^ We consequently find that when the 
Brescia and Verceli texts agree with the Greek, 
there exists a correspondent agreement between 
them and the Vulgate '^^ In a few instances St. 
Jerome has deviated from this plan ; but they are 
exceptions which strengthen the general rule, as he 
deemed it necessary to apologise for them, in his 



"- Thus Mark xvl. 9—20. Joli. vii. 53.— viil. 11.; though 
omitted in Eusebius's edition, vid. supr. pp. 36, 38. yet as re- 
tained in some of the copies of the common edition, or Vulgar 
Greek, vid. supr. p. 35. n. ^'. et p. 37. n. ^^. are inserted in the 
text of the Latin Vulgate. 

*^^ S. Hier. ub. supr. '* Igitur hsDc Praefatiuncula poUicetiu- 
quatuor tan turn Evangelia — Codicum Graecorum emendata col- 
latione— 'quae ne multuni a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discre- 
parent, ita calamo tcmperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensurh 
videbautur mutare correctis, reliqua mansre patcremtir tit JiiC' 
rant.'^ 

*^ The reader, on turning to pp. 67, 68, 69, may see thiB 
observation exempHlied in the first twelve verses of St. Mat* 
thew's tifth chapter. 



( 163 ) 

commentary "^ The Brescia and the Verceli texts, 
as they verify his account, must of course preserve 
the Latin version, as it was found in St. Jerome's 
copies. 

4. On collating those copies together, if they 
were found to differ from each other, St. Jerome*s 
plan was, to collate them with the old copies of the 
Greek, and thence to determine which of them 
agreed with the original '*^. If one of his Latin 
copies agreed with Eusebius's text, he consequently 
adopted the reading. But if neither agreed with 
it, he of course translated the original, and inserted 
the correction in his amended version. Now, on 
supposing that the Brescia and Verceli texts repre- 

"5 In Matt. iv. 1. the Old Italick reads <'in Bethlehem Ja- 
d^^," Brix, Verc. Veron, and the Greek Iv Bs^Xse/x r^y Ts^ata?, 
Gr, Vulg. but St. Jerome, on the authority/ of the Hebreiv, cor- 
rected this phrase to " in Bethlehem Jud^,** Lat, Vulg. He 
thus, however, apologizes for deviating from the authority of 
his Greek and Latin copies. Com. in Matt. Lib, I. cap. ii. p. 2. 
f, " Librariorum hie error est, putamus enim ab evangelista pri- 
mum editum, sicut in ipso Hehraico legimus, " Judae" non 
** Judaeae" — Judas autem idcirco scribitur quia est et alia Beth- 
lehem in Galilsea. Lege librura Jesu filii Nave. Denique et 
in ipso testimonio quod de Michece prophetiu sumptum est ita 
liabetur ; ** Et tu Bethlehem terra Juda.*' Here, of course, 
was St. Jerome's authority. 

"^ S, Hier. Sun. et Fretel. Epist. cxxxv. Tom, HL p. 377. 
** Sicut autem in Novo Testamento si quando apud Latinos 
quaestio exoritur, et est inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad 
Jbntem Grceci sermonis, quo Novum scriptum est Instrumen- 
tum : ita in Veteri Testamento si quando inter Grsecos Lati- 
nosque diversitas est, ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem: ut 
<juidquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc qiuxfamus in riuulii" 

m2 



( 164 ) 

sent St. Jerome's Latin copies, and that the lattei* 
Was the basis of his version : we find St. Jerome's 
readings accounted for, on comparing' those manu- 
scripts with Eusebius's edition. The Verceli and 
Brescia texts, in the first place disagree, where the 
former, which was St. Jerome's basis, differs from 
the Vulgate "^^ In the next place where the 
Brescia or Verceli text corresponds with the Greek, 
we find its reading inserted in the text of the Vul- 
gate '^^ In the last place^ where those texts do not 

'^7 Vid. Infr-. n. "^ 

"^ The following collection of texts will illusttate the dwer^ 
sit?/ between St. Jerome's Latin copies ; and shew the peculiar 
readings, which were inserted in his Vulgate, from the Primi- 
tive Latin Version, on account of their agreemejit with his old 
Greek copies, INIat. ii. 9. supra puerum. Veix, Veron. [^Itrdm 
S ^v TO -crat^ioy. Vat. Gr. Vulg.~\ supra uhi erat puer. Brix» 
Fm^o.— -iii' 16» descendentem c/ec^/o, Verc. Veron. [^hutu^uTvoi. 
Vat. Fzi/o".] dcscendentenij 5/70:. Vulg. — Ibid. 17. dicens ad eum 
hie est. Verc. Veron. [^^iyaa-oc, iiro(; Irt. Vat. Vidg.^ dicens hie 
est Brix. Vulg. — iv. 4. omni verbo Dei. Veron. hiat Verc. 
r^aiT* p:',/x5:'l» sycTTopsvofj^ivcp ^Lo, <^6fjioc%s ©£». Vat. Vidg.^ omne 
verbo quod procedii de ore Dei. Brix. Vulg. — lb. 10. vade retro 
we Satanas. Veron. vade retro Satanas. Verc, [vTruyt i:alxvx. 
Vat. Vid^'"] vade Satana. Brix. Vidg. — lb. 24-. omnes curavit. 
Verc. Veron. {l^tfocTnva-iv avr^s. Vat. Vidg.~\ curavit eos. Brix. 
yuJa-, — lb. v.^, 5. vid. supr. p. 63. — lb. 11. propter justitiam 
Verc. Veron. [^-culopLhoi Bvsy.sv ept?. Vat. Vulg.^ meniientes 
propter me. Brix. Vulg.—lh. 12. in ccelo. P'erc. Veron. [e^ 
ToT; epavoTt;. Vat. Vidg.^ in coelis. Brix. Vidg.—lh. 13. valet. Verc. 
Veron. [iVx-:« eri. Vat. Vidg.'] valet ?ihra. Brix. Vulg.—lh. 14. 
hujus mundi. Verc. Veron. [t2 y.o<T,j.^. Vat. Vulg.^ mundi. Brix. 
Vids. — lb. 32. dico vobis. Verc.Veron .[x/y^ ^i^-*"" o^'- Vat.VuJg.'] 
dico vobis quia. Brix. i'ulg.—Void. qui dimissam duxerit ma?- 
Chatur. Brix. Vulg. [o cciroWKv^in^v yx^ng-ac ttoi;>^«T«u Vat. oj £«» 



C 165 ) 
so correspond, in which case both St. Jerome's basis 
and his '' other copy'^ must have differed from the 
original, we there find that the Vulgate not only 
differs from both, but accords with the Greek of 
Eusebius '^9. it must be of course evident that the 

— ya/A^o-)}. Vidg.'\ desuiit. Verc. Veron.~lh. 38. dentem pro 
deiitem. Verc. Veron. [x^ oo^oiOa uvr) o^ovto<;. Vat. Vnlg.~\ et den- 
tem pro dente. Brix. Vvlg.—wn. 13. quam. V^rc. Veron. [or* 
Vat. Vulg.2 quia. Brix. Vulg.—ix. 15. jejunabunt in illis diebus, 
Verc. Veron. [_i^ -von urirBvo-aa-iv. Vat. Vulg.~\ et tunc jejunabunt. 
Brix. Vnlg.—lh. 25. venit et tenuit Verc. Veron. [siVsA^^i* infa^ 
rvicre. Vat.2 intravit et tenuit. Brix. VuJg. — x. 18. stabitis. Verc, 
Veron. liox^-naa^z. Vat. Vidg.'] ducimini. Brix. Vulg.-^^-lh. 23. 
quod si in aliam persequentur vos, fugite in aliam. Verc. Veron. 
desunt : Vat. Vulg. Brix. Vylg.-^lh. 24-. dominum. Verc. Ve- 
ron. [toi/ y.vpiov avTH. Vat. Vulg,'] dominum suum Brix. Vulg. 
—lb. 35. dividere filium. Verc. Veron. l^x^aui av^pojwov. Vat. 

Vulg.] separare hominem. Brix. Vulg lb. 42. non peribit mer- 

ces sua Verc. merces ejus. Veron. [a f*-^ aTroAaV*? rlv i^ia-^ov uvrS. 
Vat. Vulg.] non perdet mercedem suam. Brix. Vulg. 

The following collection of texts will equally illustrate thfe 
diversity between St. Jerome's Lat. Conies^ and shew the pecu- 
liar readings which he adopted from the Received Version, on 
account of their agreement with Eusebius's edition of the 
Grceh Matt. v. 11. beati eritis. Brix. Veron. Ifj^ocKccpioi Irs Vat^ 
Vulg.] beati estis. Verc. Vulg.—lh. 30. mittatur, in gehen- 
nam. Z?Wx. [^tUynwav dTraX^ri, Vat.] eat in gehennam. Verc. Ve- 
ron. Vulg.—Yi. 1. elemosynam Brix. p^y.cciocrvr/iv. Vat.] justitiam 
Verc. Veron. Vulg.—lh. 13. quoniam tuum est regnum, et vir. 
tus et gloria, in sascula. Amen. Brix. desunt. Vat. Verc. Veron, 
Vulg.~x. 3. Jacobus Alphei et Lehheus qui noininatur Taddeus. 
Brix. l^ccyJBoq ra AA<pai», «^ Qcc^^uTcc. Vat.] Jacobus Alphei 
et Judas Zelotes. Verc. P'eron. Jacobus Alphei et l^haddajus. 
Vulg. 

"^ The following collection of texts exhibit the peculiar read- 
ings which St. Jerome introduced into the Vulgate from possess- 



( 166 ) 

Brescia and Verceli manuscripts must preserve the 
Latin text in the state in which it existed in the best 
manuscripts from which St. Jerome formed the 
Vulgate. 

This method of correcting the Latin version 
seems hable but to the one objection which it is my 
main object to estabUsh ; that the text of Eusebius, 

ing a juster knowledge of the Greek, and preserving a closer 
adherence to the copies of Eusehius's edition. Mat. i. 25. non 
Cognovit. Brix. Cant. Feron. \jy\vuay.iv. Fat. Ftilg.'] non cognos- 
cebat. Fnlg. Corh. — ii. 9. et stetit supra. Brix. Fere. Feron o 
[_suq EraS>j iTram. Fat."] itsquedum staret supra. Fulg. Corb.-—^ 
iv. 18. cum autem transiret. Brix. cum transiret autem Fere, 
Feron. [-zTspTD-aTo)!/ ^e Fat. Fulg.~\ ambulans autem Fulg. Cerb, 
"— V. 22. frati'i suo sine causa, Brix. Fere. Feron. [rf uhx(p^ 
aire. Fat.'] fratri suo. Fulg. — vi. 2. perceperunt mercedenir 
Brix. Fere. Feron. \_u'7rixiicri to» /aio-Sov. Fat. Vvlg."] receperunt 
Fulg. Corb, — lb. 8. nollite — similar e eis. Brix. Fere. Feron* 
\_l//r, — o^oiwS^Tfi uv\oX<;. Fat. Fidg."] nollite — assimilari eis. Fulg. 
Corb. — ix. 28. veniente autem eo in domum Brix. et venit in do- 
mum. Fere. Feron. [eX^ovl* ^l tU Ty/v olyActv, Fat. Fnlg."] cum autem 
venisset in domum. Fidg. Corb. — Ibid, coeci illi. Brix. coeci duo 
Fere. Feron. \_ol •rvtp'Ko). Fat. Fvlg.] coeci Fidg. Corb. — x. 5. 
prsecipiens eis et dicens. Brix. Fere. Feron. [-arapafyetXas avraTq 
•hiyav. Fat. Fulg.'] praecipiens eis dicens. Vulg. — lb. 10. dignus 
enim est operarius mercedem suam. Brix. Fere. Feron. [a|»c5 
yap lpyaT»j$ rr^s T§o(py>f olvxs. Fat. Fnlg.] dignus est enim ope- 
rarius cibo. suo. Fulg. Corb. 

While these examples, together with those quoted, supr. n. 
'*^ et infr. n. '^^ demonstrate, that the Fidgate has had no in- 
fluence on the Brescia MS ; they illustrate, in the particular 
instance of the Corbeian MS. the influence which that version 
h?s had upon some copies of the Old Italich The examples 
quoted supr. n. "^ on the other hand, evince the influence 
vhich the Brescia text has had on the Vuhate. 



{ 167 ) 

by which St. Jerome in some places ^'° modelled his 
translation, possessed not authority equal to that of 
the Old Italick version. And we consequently find, 
that this very objection was made to the Greek text 
by Hilary the Deacon '^* ; and to St. Jerome, by 

*'° In the examples cited supr. nn. "^ et **^, it is observable 
that St. Jerome generally possessed the authority of the two 
species of text contained in his old Greek copies ( i. e. Vat, 
Vulg.J in favour of his corrections. When those copies dif- 
fered, and Eusebius's text (Vat.) agreed with his basis (Verc.) 
it is likewise observable he followed their joint authority, 
against that of the common Greek ( VuIg.J. In one instance, 
Mat. V. 22, he has followed the authority of Eusebius's text, 
against the joint authority of his Latin copies and the Greek 
Vulgate. But for this deviation from his usual plan, he offers 
the following apology ; Com. in Matt. Lib. I. cap. v. p. 6. " In 
^ uibusdam Codicibus additur "sine causa," cseterum in veriSf 
definita sententia est, et ira penitus tollitur, dicente Scrip- 
tura ; " qui irascitur fratri sue." Si enim jubemur verberanti 
alteram praebere maxillam, et inimicos nostros amare, et orare 
pro persequentibus, omnis ira3 occasio tollitur. Radendum est 
ergo " sine causa." From hence it appears that St. Jerome's 
main dependance was on the copies containing Eusebius's 
text, which were indeed generally supported by the Greek 
Vulgate ; but these he termed his " true^^ rather than his 
** antieyit copies.*' His declaration that *•' sine causa" ims to 
he erased, clearly evinces that this reading xvas found in the 
whole of the Latin copies with which he was acquainted ; his 
words, of course, by implication declare, that the testimony 
of the Old Italick was in this instance collectively against Eu- 
sebius's edition : vid. infr. n. '^^ 

"' Vid. supr. p. 57. n. ". Hilar. Comment, in Gal. ii. « Tria 
hajc mandata ab Apostolis et senioribus data reperiuntur, id 
est, " ut observent se ab idolatria et sanguine" sicut Noe, 
" et fornicatione." Quos Sophisfce Grcecomm non intelligen- 
teSj scientes tamen a sanguine non abstinendum, adidierarunt 
Scrijyturam, quartum mandatum addentes *' et a suffocato*' 
observandum." 



( 168 ) 

Helvidius, who accused him of following copies 
that had been corrupted '-\ And that this objec- 
tion was made with effect, is apparent ; from the 
Old Version having still maintained its ground in 
the Latin Church even against the authority of St. 
Jerome ; and from the difficulty which attended its 
final suppression under Cassiodorus ^^\ But this 
testimony of the Latin Church against the new 
version is not merely negative ; but may be thrown 
on the side of the Byzantine Greek and of the Pri- 
mitive Version. Hilary, indeed, in objecting to the 
Greek copies, supports a reading ^^"^ which proba- 

'3* S. Hier. adv. Helvid. cap. iv. Tom. II. p. 135. " Et 
erant" inquit Lucas, ^^ pater illius et mater adniirantes super 
his, quae dicebantur de eo." Licet tu mira impudentia hcoc in 
Greeds Codicibus Jahata contejidas, quae non solum omnes 
jjeyie Graecias tractatores, sed nonnidli quoque e Latinis, ita ut 
in GrsEcis habentur, assumpserint." Here consequently the 
whole nearly of the Old Latin Version was against the Re- 
ceived Text, of Palestine, as published by Eusebius : vid. infr. 
n. '\ 

nz Vid. supr. pp. 16, 17. 

'^* The history of this reading is curious, and constitutes one 
of the many proofs which evince the integrity of the Greek 
Vulgate. In Act. xv. 20, the common or Vulgar edition 
reads, aTrep/es-Oai airo tuv a.\iC7yr,^a,i:uv tu:v a^wAwv aou i:riq luopviiaq 
3^ TB zjviKTs ^ ra xi^olIqs. But the reason of the prohibition 
** from strangled and from blood" not being understood; the 
following explanatory gloss, which has crept into the text, xat 

%ac(, a'j jw,»3 ^i'hua-iv lacvloTq yiuBa^ui, hsfoii /x>? ^oibTv, was added, in 

order to accommodate the passage to Gen. ix. 4. 5. 7. 6. This 
meaning, however, seemed to some of the revisers of the Latin 
Version to be expressed in aTr/jj/saDat t« al'/xctlo? ; yet apprehen- 
sive lest it should be understood as a ' prohibition from eating 
blood,' they superseded " a suffocato" by " sicut Noe." Such 



( 169 ) 
l}ly existed only in the Received Text, as revised 
by St. Eusebius of Verceli ; and thus merely sup- 
ports the credit of that translation. But Helvidius 
supports a reading which is found in the Brescia 
and Byzantine text, against one which is found in 
the Palestine text and the Vulgate of Jerome '^^ 



was the reading of Hilary's copies, vid. supr. n. '^^ : but the 
Greek which is left behind, after expunging t5 Tri/txTa, will not 
bear the sense he assigns it ; or any meaning but that of refrain- 
ino- from partaking of blood, vid. 1 Tim. iv. 3. The vulgar 
reading is, however, right ; the prohibition of the Apostles hav- 
ino- been evidently levelled against the inhuman and depraved 
lites, in which the early Pagan converts fancied themselves 
licenced to indulge; vid. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 13, 14, 19. Rev.ii. 14, 20. 
conf.' Athenag. Leg. pro Christt. p. 4. c. et Just. Mart. Apol. 
maj. p. 70. a. b. ed. Par. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 272. ed. Cant. S. 
Epiph. Hser. xxvi. p. 84. c. 87. b. 

»35 Luke ii. S3, h zjulrip alye y.ocl r, {jL'rjTYi^. P^at. pater illius et 
mater. Vulg. la;ari(p xal h ^yirr^^- ^idg- Joseph et mater ejus. 
Brix. Verc. Veron. Corb. The reading of Eusebius, which St. 
Jerome adopts, he defends by reference to Joh. i. 46. " Hier. 
adv. Helv. cap. ix. p. 138. *' Ac ne forte de exeraplariorum 
veritate causeris, quia tibi stultissime persuasisti, Grcecos Co- 
dices essefahatos : ad Joamtiis Evangelium venio, in quo ple- 
nissime scribitur ; 'Invenit Philippus Nathanael, et ait illi ; 
quern scripsit Moyses in lege, et prophetae invenimus Jesura 
Jil'um Joseph.' Certe hoc in tuo Codice continetur. Responde 
mihi, quo modo Jesus sit Jllius Joseph, quern constat de Spi- 
ritu Sancto esse procreatum?" But the reading of the Greek 
Vulgate and Old Italick Version may be easily defended against 
this solemn trifling ; and the refutation of Eusebius and Jerome 
may be effected with ease. In Joh. i. 46. the sacred historian 
merely relates the declaration ef Philip ; in Luke ii. 33. the in- 
spired writer ^^e-ak?, for himself. From Joh. ii. 11. vli. 5. it 
will appear that had Philip at this XkwQ declared his belief in 



( 170 ) 

He consequently not only supports the authority of 
the Greek Vulgate while he detracts from that of 
the Latin ; but by his appeal to Latin copies, he 
proves that the Vulgar Greek was exclusively sup- 
ported by the authority of the original Latin 
Translation. 

As St. Jerome is thus deserted by the testimony 
of the early Latin Church, his own testimony is in- 
adequate to support the authority of the new Vul- 
gate against that of the old, or primitive version. 
His declaration, that he purposed following the old 
copies, has been taken in a positive, not relative 
sense *^^; his words, instead of being interpreted 
with reference to the rectified copies which pre- 
vailed in his times, have been understood of the 



the divinity of our Lord, it must have been by an oversight of 
the sacred historian. And from Luke ii. 48, 49, 50, it will 
appear that had St. Luke assigned any Father to Christ but God, 
it must have been by grossly confounding what our Lord had 
expressly distinguished. However " foolish the persuasion" 
may be deemed, the Vatican MS. and Latin Vulgate are here, 
I ain persuaded, grossly corrupt. 

"^ On the publication of a new edition of the sacred text by 
the orthodox revisers, vid. supr. p. 93. n. '"^ p. n. '°^, the 
Received Text edited by Eusebius became, properly speaking, 
the old. This mode of expression was not unknown to the 
Ci reeks. In this sense St. Irenaeus speaks of i/ie old copies of 
the Apocalypse, while he asserts even of tlie original xvorJcj that 
it was published in the age in "which he Jlourished. S. Iren. adv. 

Hcer. Lib. \'. cap. XXX. p. S30. Tslm ai ^tu; Ix^Hovy y.al h 
-nra^-j 04 TOK o-TraJaters y.cc\ apy^aciois dy'lr/pcc(poii t5 aptO/xS rata y.«/xe- 
va, xai ixaflvpHvlojv avra;v 8;esu'&'V rcov y.a,r o-^iv 'IojoltjTiV 
iw^axoTwy, y.a.) ra Xoyy o,}cLry.Qv\o^ r;ux,<; — Conf. Ut SUpr. p. 121-. D. 

''. p. 167. n. '3°, 



( 171 ) 

copies of Pierius and Origen, to which he appealg 
occasionally '^7. They have been however strained 
beyond what they will bear : for no general decla- 
ration ought to be taken in the strictness of the let- 
ter. As he was professedly a reader of Adaman- 
tius *^^ and of Pierius, whom he calls the younger 
Origen ^^^ ; he might have found the readings of 
their copies, in their commentaries, without in- 
specting their manuscripts. Had he possessed co- 
pies of the kind, he was not a person likely to sup- 
press the fact; or introduce them to the acquaint- 
ance of his readers, under the loose and indefinite 
title of '' antient copies." Nor is his shyness to 
speak expHcitly on this subject to be reconciled 
with his minute description of the text of Lucianus 
and Hesychius^ and of the canons of Eusebius of 

"^ S. HIer. Com. in Mat. cap. xxiv. Tom. VI. p. 54. " In 
quibusdam Codicibus additura est " neque filius :" cum in Grcecis 
et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplarlhiSy hoc non haheaUir 
adscriptum : sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videa- 
tur." Of whatever service it may be to the partisans of the 
Alexandrine recension to talk of these copies of Origen and 
Pierius, I am not apprehensive, that any advocate of Euse- 
bius 's text will quote this passage against the Greek Vulgate. 

^^' S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Pamphil. Tom. I. p. 128. 
** Origenis volumina manu ejus [sc. Pamphili] exarata reperi ; 
quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me 
credam. Si enim laetitia est unam epistolam habere martyris ; 
quanto magis tot millia versuum." 

'9 Id. ibid, in Pier. *' Pierius Alexandrinae ecclesiae presby- 
ter — florentissime docuit populos, et in tantam sermonis, di- 
versorumque traetatuum, qui usque hodic extant, venit elcgan- 
tiam, ut Origenes junior vocuretur.'* 



( 1"2 ) 

Cagsarea "^^ But what must lay the question at 
rest, is the confession of St. Jerome himself ; who 
not only declares that he possessed copies of Ori- 
g-en's Commentaries which had been transcribed by 
Pamphilus ^^^, but expressly admits, that Origen's 
library had fallen into decay, and had been partially 
restored on vellum by Acacius and Euzoius ''^*. As 
Orig-en's library consisted of volumes written on the 
papyrus ; such a library having* been alone suited 
to the finances of a man, who lived in poverty^ and 
was supplied with the means of publishing his works, 
by the munificence of his friend and patron Am- 
brose '^"^ ; it would have been rather a hazardous 
attempt m St. Jerome to boast of possessing his ori- 
ginal copies. The authority of Origen's Commen- 
taries became a sufficient voucher to St. Jerome, 
for the readings of Origen's copies ; in this manner 
they are occasionally cited by him, while he gene- 
rally conforms to the text of Eusebius. 

St. Jerome's authority is therefore inadequate 
to support the credit of the V^ulgate against the au- 
thority of the antient Latin translation. His ver- 
sion, as founded on a preference for Eusebius's text, 
was built on an accidental partiality ^^^ ; and on the 
the same foundation rests the standard by which he 
condemned the text of Lucianus '^^ His transla- 

"*° Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ^^^ p. ^5, n. ". infr. p. 173. n. ^« 

'^' Vid. supr. p. 171. 11. '^^ 

'^^ Vid. supr. p. 84. nn. 7^. et 7'. 

*« Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 

»** Vid. supr. pp. 84, 85. 

^^^ That he condemned it, on judging it, merely by Euse- 



( 173 ) 

tion is besides destitute of the authority of the an- 
tient Latin Churchy which continued to retain the 
primitive version. But as far as was consistent with 
St. Jerome's plan^ his testimony may be cited in 
support of this version^ and of the text of Lucianus. 
He admitted the authority of the former in correct- 
ing the Received Text of his times : and^ in follow- 
ing the edition of Eusebius Caesariensis^ he ad- 
hered to a text that approximates very closely to the 
Byzantine edition. The event is^ that the Vulgate 
of St. Jerome approaches much nearer to the primi- 
tive version of the Western Churchy than the Re- 
ceived Text of his age^ as revised by the hand of 
St. Eusebius of Verceii. 

We have now brought the determination of the 
question to the consideration of the two versions 
which preceded the Vulgate^ and which exist in 
the Brescia and Verceii manuscripts. But a choice 
between these texts may, I trusty be decided with 
little comparative difficulty. 

Considering the question, as resting between 
these two texts, it must be admitted, that one 

bius's text, taken as the standard, he has himself placed out of 
dispute. After describing Hesychius and Lucianus's text, as 
interpolated, vid. supr. p. 100. n. '". he thus observes; Praef. 
in IV. Evang. Tom. VI. p' i. " Canones quoque quos Euseh'iim 
Ccesariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium, in 
decern numeros ordinavit, sicut in Grccco habetur expi'cssimus. 
Quod si quis de curiosis voluerit quce in Evangeliis, vel eadem, 
vel vicina, vel sola sint, eorum distinctione coguoscet. Magnus 
siqnidemhic'mxio^Xn^ Codicibus error inolevit,'* &c. ut supr. 
p. 155. n, '^^ 



( 174 ) 

Ibrms the basis of the other. They possess that 
extraordinary conformity, which can be only ac- 
counted for by such an assumption ^^^. We how- 
ever know the authour of the Verceli text '"^^ ; while 
we are ignorant of that of the Brescia manuscript. 
Regarding the question as confined to the consider- 
ation of these two, St. Eusebius in forming the 
Verceli text, must have necessarily taken as his 
basis the Brescia translation. Now this conclusion 
is fully confirmed on considering the mode in which 
St. Eusebius necessarily proceeded m forming his 
revisal. On going through the process which he 
obviously must have followed,, we may produce a 
text which literally corresponds with the Verceli 
manuscript. On decomposing the version which he 
produced, we discover, in its elements, the text of 
the Brescia manuscripts. 

We cannot be mistaken in the version of St. 
Eusebius ; as the Verceli manuscript, though 
clearly not the authour's autograph, has been pre- 
served at his church in Piedmont '^^ ; it is, beyond 
all reasonable ground of doubt, a copy of the edition 
which he revised : and we discover strong and in- 
delible marks of this version having been the Re- 
ceived Text from the times of P. Julius, in the 
works of subsequent writers *'^^. We can be as lit- 
tle mistaken in the Greek text by which he formed 



H^ Vid. supr. pp. 67, 69, et p. 165. n. ''\ 
'" Vid. supr. p. 59. n. ""K 
'4S Vid. supr. p. 60. n. ^\ 
''^? Vid. supr. p. U9. n. '-", 



( n5 ) 

hisrevisal; its literal coincidence with the Cam- 
bridge manuscript proves it to have been the edition 
of Hesychius '^^ ; and this supposition is confirmed 
by the fact of the authour's exile in Eg-ypt^ where 
the text of Hesychius prevailed '5*. JVow on as- 
suming that the Brescia text formed St. Eusebius's 
basis, which was to be corrected by the Greek of 
the Cambridge manuscript ; every difference in the 
VerceliMS. which was formed by correcting the one 
from the other, may be explained and accounted for. 
This assumption may be established by a brief ex- 
emplification. 

1. When St. Eusebius's basis and his Greek copi/ 
agreed, there was no room for a correction; we 
consequently find that when the Brescia and Cam- 
bridge manuscripts agree there is a correspondent 
agreement in the Verceli manuscript '^\ 

2. Wlien the basis and Greek disagree, there 
ought to be an agreement between the Greek and 
the revisal ; consequently, on collating the Brescia 
and Cambridge manuscripts, and translating the 
Greek text in passages where it differs from the 
Latin, we produce the text of the Verceli manu- 
script »^^ 

'^"^ Vkl. supr. pp. 63, 6 i, QS, 67. 

'" Vid. supr. p. 54'. n. *^ 

•'^ This position may be verifiea, by a collation of the ex- 
tracts given in pp. 67, 69, from the Cambridge, Brescia, and 
Verceli MSS. 

^" The following collection of texts will illustrate the dkcr^ 
•'f'/j; existing between St. Eusebius's Latin basis and his Greek 
t€xt ; and the correspondence of his Corrected Text with the 



( 176 ) 

In both cases, therefore, when the basis and ori- 
ginal agreed or disagreed, to the consideration of 

latter. Matt. li. 9. stetit supra uU erat puer. Brix, [^Irci^n 
iTTcivu tS 'mxi^^H. Cant.~\ stetit supra puerum. Verc. Veron, — iii. 16. 
descendentem. Brix, \_y.u\a.^a7vov ex. t5 sqcuvu. Cant.~\ descen- 
dentem de ccelo. Fere. Veron, — lb. 17. dicens hie est. Brix% 
\>^iyiiTa, zsfos oLvroMj nroq \ti. Cant,'] dicens adeinn hie est. Verc* 
Fero7i. — iv. 4. orrmi verbo quod procedit de ore Dei. Brix, [wam 
}i)fj.u\i Biti, Cant.] omni verbo Dei. Fere's—lb. 10. Vade Satana. 
Brix. l^vTratye oTiiaoo po» Yo^ava,. Cant.] Vade retro Satana. Fere. 
Vade retro me Satanas. Feron. — lb. 24. euravit eos. Brix, 
{^'sjciilaq iQsfiiTnvai, Cant.] omnes curavit. Fe7-c. Feron, — v. 4. 
beati qid lugent) &c. Brix. [^i^unolinoi, ol zypacsHs x. t. I. Cant.] 
beati 7nites, Fere, Feron, — lb. 5. beati ^nansucti, &c. Brix, 
[waxa^ni ol 'nys'Mvleq x. t. I. Cant.] beati qui lugent. Fere, Feron, 
— lb. 11. beati er'itis. Brix. \_^a.y.a,^\.o\ Ire Cant.] beati estis. Fere, 
Feron, — Ibid, mentienies propter me. Brix. [evexek ^ty.ajoo-yvjj?. 
Cent] propter justitiam. Fere. Feron. — lb. 12. in coelis. Brix. 
\jv rf ii^uvu. Cant.] in cceIo. Vere. Veron. — lb. 13. valebit ultra. 
Brix. [la-^vu. Cant.] valet. Fere, Feron. — lb. 30. mittatur in 
gehennam. B7'ix. [aTrsX^j) bU ysiwuv. Cant.] eat in gehennam. 
Fere, Feron, — lb. 32. Dico vobis quia. Brix. ^\iyu vyuv. Cant.] 
dico vobis. Verc. Feron. — Ibid, qui dimissam duxerit maechatur. 
Brix. desunt. Cant. Verc. Feron. — lb. 38. et dentem. Brix* 
[hUvta. Cant.] dentem. Verc. Veron. — lb. 41. vade cum illo 
duo. Brix. [j/Trccys /ast' ayrS eVt oc'h'Ka Ivo. Cant.] vade cum illo 
adhuc alia duo. P^erc. Veron. — lb. 44. orate pro calumniantibus 
vobis, Brix. ^Tr^oa-ev^to-Bs v'ttb^ t^J* iTr-n^ecn^ovrav, Cant.] orate pro 
calumniantibus. Vere. Veron. — vi. 1. elemosynam. Brix. [^txai- 
ccr'jvr}». Cant.] justitiam. P'erc. V^eron. — lb. 13. quoniam tuum 
est regnum et virtus, et gloria, in scecula. Amen. Brix. desunt. 
Cant, Verc. Veron, [liiat Cant, a cap. vi. 20. ad. ix. 2.] — ix. 5. 
tibi peccata tua. Biix. [o-os al u^a^-vicn. Cant.] tibi peccata. 
Verc. Veron.] — lb. 15. jejunabunt. Brix. [vyjrey^-scru' sv Exs/vatr 
ToiAi riixio^ocis . Cant.] jejunabunt iii illis diehus, Verc. Veron, 
— lb. '28. venicnte autem eo in domum. Brix. [>:ai £f%£Tat skf rriv 
tUia^t. Ca/il.] et venit in donium. Verc. Veron.-.^lh, 28. caeei z7//- 



( 177 ) 

which the question is necessarily limited^ the result 
is precisely that which would have occurred, had the 
Brescia manuscript formed the primitive text which 
St. Eusebius corrected by the text of Hesychius. 

As the testimony of St. Eusebius's version thus 
clearly supports the antiquity, in evincing the pri- 
ority, of the Brescia text, it appears to me, that, 
when it is taken into account with other texts of the 
same edition, they annihilate the authority of He- 
sychius's text ; and thus undermining the very foun- 
dation on which they are mutually built, necessa- 
rily destroy their common credit ; and by conse- 
quence establish the exclusive authority of the text 
of the Brescia manuscript. 

Brix, [oi Ivo rv^Xol, Cant.'] duo coeci. Verc, Veron. — x* 5. Jaco- 
bus Alphei et Lehheus qui nominatur Taddeus. Brix. [^'lanu^og o 
t5 'AA(pata kotl Ai^^ouoq. Cant.'] Jacobus Alphei et Judas Ze- 
lotes. Fere, Feron.-^Ih. 18. duciraini. Brix, [rafi^creaOE. Cant.'} 
stabitis. Fere, Veron* — lb. 23. [loiv ^\ l» rij a,KKri ^luy.eaiv IfAoiif 
(pBvysle £»; rn* cihXvjv, Cant.] quod si ill aliam persequentur vos, 
fugite in aliam. Fere, Feron, desunt. Brix. — lb. 35. separare 
kominem, Brix, [^i'/jkaon vtov. Cant.] dividere filium. Fere. Fero7i, 
— lb. 4?2. perdet mercedem. Brix. [aTroXsVij 5 j^naOo?* Cant.] pe* 
i^ibit merces. Fere. Feron, I subjoin from the Cambridge MS. 
the correspondent passages to the extracts given from the Ver- 
celi MS. supr. p. 156. n. "^ Matt. xx. 28. 'Y/^ar? ^l fursm U 

fU.Y.'K'n^ivlii ^eiirvriaotyy f^n uvacy.\eiva.(T^ui [I. avxy.'KUa.a-^e] i\q raj 
l^i-XQvlxq voTraq' fjt.yi'TroTt hh^oTt^^q an i'rriX^ri-, xa* <s7^oa-eXB^uv o ^«9r* 
i'oxX»jT6;p EiVrj a-oi* "Et* y.airu %<«§«• xj mxrua^vvByiar,, '£af ^t avaweVijj 
i»S Toy iiTlovot ro-jroVf Koii Iwi^Si} an rirluvf IptT aoi o ^eiTrvoKXirup' 
l,vpaye er* avu* kxi li-oci crot tSto x^riaiiAOv* Cant, Luke xix. 45. 

T*'*T»?«?firef«f. Cant, 

N 



( ns ) 

The most remarkable of the copies of the old 
Itahck version, which conform to the edition of St- 
Eiisebius Vercellensis, are those contained in the 
Verona and Cambridge manuscripts. While they 
preserve a verbal coincidence in many places^ and 
a general conformity to the text of Hesychius '^^ ; 
they exhibit a diversity between themselves in num- 
berless readings. Prom those peculiarities, we may 
make several deductions, which will serve to esta- 
blish the foregoing assumption. If in accounting 
for the conformity/ of the text of those manuscripts 
to the Greek, we suppose them severally made from 
the text of Hesychius ; their conformity to his edi- 
tion, and their diversities among themselves, may 
be explained; but their verbal coincidences are 
wholly inexphcable. To account for the last pecu- 
liarity, we must conceive them formed on the basis^ 
of some common translation. And taking this cir- 
cumstance into account, every peculiarity in their 
respective texts admits of an easy explanation. As 
their coincidence in the first case is explained, by 
conceiving them formed on the basis of some ante- 
cedent version ; and their conformity in the second 
by conceiving them corrected by some common 
Greek text ; their diversities in the third are ex- 

'5* The coincidence of the Verceli and Verona MSS. with 
Hesycliius's text has been already pointed out; supr. p. 175. n, 
'". The ivhole of the correspondent readings there extracted, 
from those MSS. are found also in the Latin version of the 
Cambridge MS* witli the exception of those mentioned in nu* 
»5S et '". 



( 179 ) 
plained^ by conceiving them corrected by different 
hands *^^ 

Now, as the coincidences of the Verceli, Verona, 
and Cambridge MSS. are common to the Brescia 
MS. their joint testimony, so far, proves, that this 
manuscript contains the original version, on which 
they have been severally formed. And, conform- 
ably to this notion, we find, that frequently where 
those manuscripts differ from each other, and one 
of them conforms to Hesycliius's text; the other 
coincides with the Brescia manuscript '^^. It is 

**^ The following various readings of a single text, while it 
illustrates the diversity existing between the Verona the Cam- 
bridge and the Verceli MSS. will of itself almost prove, that 
both the former MSS. have been corrected by the Greek. 
Matt. X. 10. «|to? yu^ IpyaTTj; t5}? t^o^^; uvr^. dignus enim 
est operarius mercedem suam. Fere, Brix, dignus enim est ope- 
rarius mercedem (ayrS) ejus. Vej'on* dignus enim est operarius 
(t>j5 t^o^^«) esca sua, Cajit. Instances of this kind occur in 
almost every page of the Cambr. and Veroji. MSS. vid. infr. 
p. 180. nn. *^^ et *'^'. The following reading appears to me to 
demonstrate, that the text of the latter of those manuscripts 
has been corrected immediately from the Greek ; Luc. xv. 10. 
!«•» Ivt a/xapTwXar super unum peccatorem. Vera. Brix. in pecca- 
tore. Veron. The authority for this reading plainly lies in In. 
u^Ku^uihuy mistaken for \v cc(ji.ufiuXa, probably on account of the 
absence of iTri. 

'^^ The Cambridge and Verona MSS. appear to have been 
first formed on the basis of the Brescia text, by corrections taken 
from the Verceli text; after which those MSS. were severally 
revised by the original Greek of Hesychius. This assumption 
is confirmed by many of their peculiar readings, which re- 
•mained unaltered^ both under the first correction and subsequent 
revisal. I subjoin a ^ew examples; Matt. ii. 1. venerunt Hiero- 
solyma. Brix. Veron. («»$ 'is^oo-e^t^t*) venerunt in Hierusalem, 

n2 



( 180 ) 
wholly inconceivable, that this result could take 
place, if the text of this manuscript were not nearly 
identical with the primitive versiorij which formed 
the basis of these corrected translations. 
\ While the mutual coincidence of those manu- 
scripts thus confirms the authority of the Brescia 
text, their mutual dissent from it seems to destroy 
the credit of the Greek text by which they have been 

Verc. CanU — lb. v. 11. beati eritis. Brix, Veron, Q^omoi^ioi e^e) 
beati estis, Verc* Cant. — Ibid. xii. 7. misericordiam volo qua^n 
sacrificium. Brix, Veron. {iXiov BiXu o^ » Bvaiuv.) misericordiam 
volo et non sacrificium. Verc. — Job. xiv. 28. vado ad Patrem 
quoniam. Brix. Cant* (TTopsvofxai wpo? rov vocrsfot on) eo ad Pa- 
trem quia. Verc. Veron. — lb. xvi. 13. diriget vos in. Brix, Cant. 
ip^nyvian v^di<; tU) deducet vos in. Verc. Veron. By the same 
principle I account for Mat. v. 4, 5. preserving the natural order 
in Brix. Veron, while these verses are inverted in Fere, Cant, 
That the Verona MS. was formed on the basis of some primitive 
text, I first discovered from two readings. This MS. is divided 
into sections and verses, (wEptxoTraJ and r»xoO> the latter of 
which generally contain three short words ; unless they termi- 
nate the section, when they consist of owe or tiuo. But in Matt. 
ii. 9. ix. 13. the last two lines in each section are eked out by 
two words; in ii. 9. supra puerum ; in x. 13. sed peccatores. 
But if we restore the reading of the Brescia MS. * supra uhi 
erat puer,' and of the St. Germain MS. * sed peccatores ad 
pcsnitentianiy* the penultimate line will have its full comple- 
ment, and the rt%o/:>i/]p« will be perfect. In like manner, the 
Verona MS. in Mat. v. 1 ; videns autem Jesus turbam, omits 
Jesus ; but supplies its place by multarny added to turbam. As 
in MSS. which were divided rix^fug, the number of ri%ot was 
generally added at the end of each book, hence a duty was 
incumbent on the copyists not to multiply or diminish the num- 
ber, which has been consequently a mean of preserving the 
integrity of the text. 



( 181 ) 

revisedj and by consequence to undermine their 
common authority. For^ as the coincidence of all 
texts^ not less in the translation' than the original, 
proves them to have a common basis; the diver- 
sity of the manuscripts before us proves^ that the 
Greek text, by which they have been corrected, has 
been recast, since the Latin Version was originally 
made, which furnished their common basis : were 
not this the case, they would as uniformty coincide 
with the former as with the latter. Of conse- 
quence, the version which conforms to a text, that 
has been thus new-modelled, must be of very recent 
authority. 

Thus tracing this labyrinth through all its wind- 
ings, and pursuing the Latin version through all its 
changes, we ultimately arrive at the primitive West- 
ern Version. There now exists but one test by 
which it remains to be tried ; the relative merit of 
the translation. And submitting it to this last assay, 
it appears to contain within itself a sufficient proof 
of its integrity. 

The uniformity of the text declares, that it is an 
original composition ; and by consequence the basis 
of those different texts which bear it a general affi- 
nity. The archetype by which it was formed is 
one ; being that particular class of text which exists 
in the Greek Vulgate*"; and it conforms to this 
model in all its parts, while the other versions pos- 
sess inequalities which have originated in attempts 
to improve upon it, as the primitive translation '^*. 

'" Vid. supr. p. 164. n. "^^ conf. infr. p. 186. n. "^. 

*'* This is apparent in the uniformity with which t his MS. 



( 183 ) 

A minute investig-ation of those inequalities con* 
stantly enables us to distinguish the original version 
from the derivative. While it retains the common 
marks by which they evince their affinity to the 
Greek, in retaining the Greek idiom '^^ ; it is free 

generally renders the same Greek term, by the same Latin 
word; while the other versions constantly vary from them- 
selves. Matt. v. 27. 32. {xoix^vcreiq' /i^ot^arat. moechaberis : 
moechatur. Brix. moechaberis : adulterat. Vulg, — lb. vi. 8, 
p,?} o[xoia)^riTr ofxoiucru, nollite similare : similabo. Brix. similare: 
similis est. Verc, assimilari : assimilabitur. Fulg. — John viii. 
13, 14. (jLct^v^BTq* fjt,a.^v^cu. testimonium perhibes: testimonium 
perhibeo. Brix. testificaris : testimonium dico. Verc. — Conf. 
Joh. i. 7. 14. The repetitions in the following passages, taken 
from Matt. xxv. 21 — 46. \vill illustrate this remark in a still 
more satisfactory manner. Matt. ib. 35. 37. 42» BTroTKj-ocle fjn* 
i7ror'iasi[xBv' ETroTicraTe /xh. potastis me : potavimus : dedimus tibi 
potum. Brix. dedistis mihi bibere : dedimus tibi potum : dedis- 
tis mihi potum. Fere. — Ib. 35. 38. 43. 'm^u^oi'h(ii /xe* TrEpjEiSaAo/iCsv 
vi^n^ctXili fjLs, cooperiustis me : cooperuimus : cooperuistis me. 
Brix. operuistis me : vestivimus : operuistis me. Verc. 

'^^ The following are purely idiomatick phrases adopted from 
the Greek. Matt. ii. 11. Ix^ovln; sU rr,v oIkIoiv. intrantes in do- 
mum. B7-ix. Verc. Veron. intrantes domum. Vulg. Corb. — Ib. 
23. MurcoK-fiaiv tU TToAtv. habitavit in civitatem. Brix, Veron. habi- 
tavit in civitate. Verc. Cant. — Ib. vii. 13. r^ vi^i^ixhuiAi^oe. quid 
operiemur. Brix. Verc* Veron. quo operiemur. Vulg. Corb.'— 
Joh. xii. 18. I'jTY.^iv £7r' EjLiE tYiv iflifvocv, Icvavit super me calca- 
neum. Brix. Veron. levavit in me calcaneum. Verc. In the 
following passage, we find the traces of the original still more 
strongly marked in the translation; Matt. xxiv. 15. to ^^iXvyfxx 
rrnq i^Yi^xuatuc, to p)?^/ 1'. abominationem dessolationis quod dictum, 
Brix. Verc. Veron : to fri^iv being here literally rendered quod 
dictum, without much attention to the context. The phrase 
was however retained, as " abominatio quae dicta est" would 
have imperfectly expressed the original ; and to f>j$£» ^»» AuniiX 
T« w|)o9^Ta may be considered parenthetical. 



( 183 ) 
from peculiar solecisms which they have evidently 
acquired in undergoing a revisal*^°. In tlie choice 
of terms, it constantly exhibits that unfaithfulness to 
the original, which is unavoidable in a first attempt 
to transfuse the sense of one language into ano- 

'^° The following errours have plainly arisen from imperfect 
corrections ; the context not having been adapted to the emen- 
dation. Mat. vi. 4. iv rZ (pavtpu. in manifesto. Brix. 2w palam. 

Fere. — lb. ix. 25. ots ^s b^b^A^By) o ox^o?, bIctsXBuv IV.^aTJjo-e. Et 

^uum ejecta est turba intravit et tenuit. Brix, Et cum ejecta 
€st turba et tenuit. Corb, In the former instance the cor- 
rector, in rendering Iv ru (pan^a, would have changed in 
manifesto to j^^tlam ; but omitted to erase iru And in the 
latter, St. Matthew having already declared, ib. 23. \>^Bm I 
Ijjcra? tU T«» olKkKv ; the corrector not perceiving the force of 
IaS^v iU t^iv oi-Aocv, " coming into or entering the house," and 
Blcre>.Bwy, « entering into'' an inner part, or room, of it, be- 
lieved the latter phrase implied a contradiction ; and conse« 
quently omitted it altogether. Other revisers merely softened 
the phrase; and thus rendered eiVtA^^^, venit, (Fere. Veron,) 
aceedens, (Germ) ; either of which terras betrays a correction 
of the text. The hand of a corrector is still more apparent in 
the following passage ; Matt. xxv. 41. tU r'o -^V^ to uUhov § 
i3ToifA.ccciv ^oc%^ ij,ii rf ^iocBoXc^. Cant, in igne7n aeternum quod 
paravit Pater raeus Diabolo. Fere, This solecism is, however, 
easily accounted for. The original text and version having 
stood thus: ik to -Trvp to ctluviov TO iiroiiA^cta-fjthoy rZ ^taBoXui 
(Fulg.) in ignem aeternum qui paratus est Diabolo, (Brix) ; 
rh i)roifAucriA,ivov was changed into o hroi[A,ac7Bp 5 TTUT^^ y,ii; and 
this phrase being literally rendered by « quod paravit Pater 
meus," was inserted in the text. The corrector deceived by 
the juxtaposition of quod to ceternuniy overlooked ignem, with 
which it should properly agree : lie has thus left a clear testi- 
mony in favour of the true reading of the original Latin ver- 
sion, and consequently, of the integrity of the Greek Vul- 
gate, 



( 184 ) 

tlier*^' ; while they possess many niceties which are 
the product of a second effort to approximate the 
copy still more closely to its model '^*. And in the 

*^' The following expressions indicate the poverty of lan- 
guage, which is the effect of a first attempt at translation : 
Matt. vii. 24. oixoiux^u, similaho, Brix. assimilabitur. Fulg. — 
lb. vi. 8, fAT) o/xo»cySaT£, nollite similare, Brix, nollite assimilari, 
Fulg. — Luc. xxi. 38. w^^pifj, manicabat, Brix. de luce vigilabat. 

Fere Matt. xxv. 35. iirol'^a-uis fxs, potastis me. Brix. dedistis 

iiiihi bibere. Fere. — Joh. x. 22. lyevelo ra, iy>ixmu. facta est 
dedicatio, Brix. facta sunt encaenia. Verc. Veron. — Matt. xxii. 
19. TO voyna^jix t£ yt'-ivaHy denarium, Brix. denarium census. Cant, 
numisma, census. Fere. Fulg. — Luc. ii. 1. viroy^a.(pia-Bcn descri' 
ieretm: Brix. profiteretur. Fe7'c. Feron. — ^Ib. 3. v7royfu(ph. 
descriptio. Brix. professio. Fere, Feront In the last instances 
the corrector has been detected in the very act ; in the margin 
of M. Blanchini's Evang. Quadruplex, the following observa- 
tion is made on the Codex Gatianus, " ut censum descrihere- 

iur .•'* recenti manu, ' profiteretur.' prirais curis " haec 

descriptio" secundis curis, * professio.' 

*^^ In the following expressions we trace the progress of 
improvement; Matt. xxii. 10. omnes quos. Brix. (Truvrocg ooiss), 
omnes quotquGt. Fere, omnes quoscunque. Corb. — lb. xiv. 22. 
^.taiim jussit. Brix. Fere, (g^SfV'? r,vaiyy.acac)y staiim coegit. Cant. 
gtatim compulit Fulg.-^Va. iii. 7. ab ira ventura. Brix. Fere. 
(^uTTo 7r)<; fj^sKKmns o^yr}<;}, ab ira Jidura. Feron. — Marc. xiii. 32. 
nemo scit. Brix. Cant. («^e<s otosy) nemo novit. Fere, — lb. 
xi. 25. stabitis ad orationem, Brix, (rJjKvjle 'npoaw/py^zvQi)^ 
stabitis or antes, Vere. statis or antes, Veron. — Joh. i. 13. ex san- 
guine, Brix, (gl uli^ocTuv) ex sanguiyiibus. Verc. — lb. xv. 7. 
quodcunque wolyxQxiU^ petere, Brix. Fere, [t lav ^e>.vflt alryxner^t), 
quodcunque volueritis petite. Feron, — lb. i. 12. his qui ere-- 
dunf in nomen. Brix. (tok mTsvaa-tv eU to ovoixoc), credentibus 
in nomen. Feron. — lb. xv. 6. projicitur — et arescet, et colligent. 
Brix. {li3A^S>j — Ksc) l^rifciv^y xccl avtoiyiijiv) missus est — et aruit, 
et colligent. P'eron. I subjoin another example, as forming a 
various reading in the first ten chapters of St. Matthew ; v. 5. 



( 185 ) 
arrangement of the words^ it preserves the tenour of 
the sense unembarrassed^ while they exhibit those 
breaches in the sense^ and encumbrances of the struc- 
ture, which betray the hand of a corrector ''^^ 

hereditahunt terram. Brix. {x.Xyi^ovouvi<rn<ri rriv yyi») hereditata 
posddebnnt terram. Verc, St. Jerome's critique upon Ruffi- 
nus may be here cited, as in point; Hier. Apol. adv. Ruf. Lib. 
II. cap. i. p. 242. " Homo Grcecus videtur mihi se ipsum 
interpretari vcluisse, et pro eo quod apud eos dicitur 
x?^r,p'^o/x:9£ra<rt, et apud nos uno verbo dici potest * hcereditabunt,' 
compositias et ornatius dixisse, " liaereditate potientur." 

'*^ The following texts, which respectively exhibit a defi^ 
ciency and a superabundance in the Corrected Text, will illus- 
trate the above assumption ; Mat. xv. 8. Ityii^zi fAoi 5 >^aoq stoj 
TOJ <^oiMa.ri avTouM, j^ roTq ^siT^ea-i fjn rifxa" Fulg, Adpropinquat 
se mihi populus hie ore siio, et labiis suis me honorat. Brix. 
* Plebs haec labiis me diligit.* Fere. Here, in paring down 
the original text to the standard of Mark vii. 6. the corrector 
gives us the extraordinary phrase, * labiis me diligit,* which is 
however corrected to * labiis me honorat.* Veron. St. Jerome 
however, adhering still more closely to the original version, 
confirms the true reading, * popidus hie labiis me honorat.* 

Ftdg. Again, Luc. xii. 37. Ma.y.a.fioi ot ^a^o» x. t. I. — ku] TrapeX^w* 

Vulg. Beati servi, &c. — et transiens ministrabit illis. Et si 
venerit in secunda vigilia, et si in tertia venerit, et ita in- 
venerit, beati sunt servi ilii. Brix. But the subjoined reading 
of Marcion's text has been engrafted on this verse ; y.a) sect 
e7\Biii iv T»} la-irefivv ^uXax^ y.cci evfv) 'htu^ [^UKciftoi tlanvy on uvotithwiT 
ayra^, Koa ix^uv Tcciv ^locaovyjaei uvroTi, It has produced the fol- 
lowing, among other varieties ; Beati servi, &c. — transiens 
mimstrabit illis. Et si venerit in vespertina vigilia beati sunt, 
et si in tertia venerit, et ita invenerit, beati sunt, quoniam 
Jubebit illos discumbere, et ministrabit illis. Feron. Et si ve- 
nerit in vespertina vigilia, et ita invenerit beati sunt servi 
iJli quia jubebit illos discumbere, et transiens ministrabit illis. 



( 186 ) 
Under every trial therefore^ it bears internal evi- 
dence of having' been the pure, unsophisticated 
version, which had been used, from the apostolical 
age, by the Western Churches. 

Having thus ascertained the testimony of the 
Western Church, as contained in the Primitive Ver- 
sion, we may now leave the coincident testimony of 
the Greek and Latin Church, to speak for the inte- 
grity of the Received Text"^^ which has furnished 

Et si venerit in secunda vigilia et si in tcrtia, et ita invenerit 
beati sunt. Maj. Mon. In the former instance the genuine 
and spurious text are blended ; in the latter they are kept more 
apart ; the diversity between them and the original text suffi- 
ciently evinces their corruption. In the following instance we 
discover the members of the genuine text distributed in differ- 
ent copies of the corrected; Mat. X. 3. 'laiy.u^og 9 re 'A}^(pa,iy, 
xat) ABiSQccToi iTTivM^iU ©cc6^a,7o<;. Viilg. Jacobus Alpliei, et 
Lebbeus qui nominatur Taddeus, Brix, One part of this text 
is found in * Jacobus Alphaei et Taddcous. Corb : the other 
part, in ' Jacobus Alphei et Lebbeus, Cant. These texts of 
course destroy the testimony of each other, while they confirm 
the reading of the Brescia MS. In the present case the Verc. 
and Veron. MSS. are neuter; reading, * Jacobus Alphaei et 
Judas Zelotes* 

*^* The extraordinary coincidence of the Greeh Vulgate and 
Brescia MS. have been pointed out in the course of the pre- 
ceding pages ; see particularly pp. 63, 64-, 65, 69, &c. The few 
examples in p. 163. n. "*. p. 157. n. '*'^. which have not been 
confirmed by the authority of the Greek, may be here inserted ; 
Mat. vi. 1. ne elemosynam facite. Brix. iMrn^ocrvvnv f>t>? tfouTv, 
Vulg. — lb. 13. quoniam tuum est regnum et virtus, et gloria, 
in saecula. Brix. ort an It^v t) /Sacn^Eta, y.at) v ^v>a.iJi,i(;, y.ctl v) o&|a 
lU ra? aluvx^, Vidg. lb. xxiii. 14. Vae autem vobis Scribee et 
Pharisaji, hypocritae, qui devoratis domos viduarum, sub 
©btentu prolixae orationis ; propterea sumetis pluriorem dam- 
nationem. Brix. Oy«i v^h y^a^^M-arerj xot) (poi,^iffOtXoif vTFox^nat' 



( 187 ) 

the model of our Authorised Version. The short 
specimen which I have already given of their extra- 
ordinary coincidence, even in passages where they 
mutually vary from other texts and translations, 
will sufficiently evince the integrity of the text 
which is contained in the Greek Vulgate. 

In determining our choice between the three 
classes of text which have descended to our times, 
little more is now necessary, than to state the com- 
parative instability of the grounds on which those 
criticks have built, who have made a different elec- 
tion, and expressed a different partiality. 

The scheme of Dr. Bentley is manifestly defec- 
tive. For though it is founded on the mutual testi- 
mony of the Greek and Latin translation, it is un- 
supported by that of the Western Church for the 
first three hundred years, and by that of the Eastern 
Church for the last thirteen hundred. For the La- 
tin Vulgate, on which his scheme is principally 
founded, was not received in the West for the for- 
mer period ; and the Greek Vulgate, which differs 
from it, has been received in the East, for the latter. 
His Corrected Text must of course have rested on 
the authority of St. Jerome and Eusebius. But their 
authority, though unquestionably great, and confirm- 
ed in all important points by the general testimony 
of tradition, is not of consideration to the Catho- 
lick Church which^ in being the witness and keeper 

X^y^ivoi' ^iu T»To A'^-vJ/eo-Se TTefK^aoTifov K^ifAo.. Vulg. For the au- 
thority of Mat. V. 32. vid. supr. p. 64: for that of Mat. x. 3. 
vid. supr. p. 186. n. '^^ 



( 188 ) 

of Holy Writ, acknowledges no paramount or indi- 
vidual authority in transmitting, from age to age, 
the rule of faith and manners. 

The scheme of M. MatthaBi, though unexcep- 
tionable, where that of Dr. Bentley is defective ; is 
likewise defective in rejecting the testimony of the 
Western Church, and exclusively building on that 
of the Eastern. It has contequentiy no more thaa 
presumptive evidence to urge in its support for the 
first seven centuries ; since which the generality of 
those manuscripts w^ere written, in which the testi- 
mony of the latter Church is transmitted. This 
evidence is undoubtedly of the highest kind, as it is 
improbable in the extreme that the Eastern Church 
could have corrupted the sacred text in the earliest 
and purest ages, and have preserved it uncorrupt in 
the dark and barbarous ages. As some manuscripts 
however exist, wiiich are of greater antiquity than 
those which contain the Greek Vulgate, and which 
differ from it, while they agree with the Latin tran- 
slation ; their testimony leaves it a doubt, whether 
length of time, supported by uniformity of consent, 
ought not to decide against superiority of numbers. 
Such, it is obvious, was the opinion of Dr. Bentley ; 
the reasonableness of whose scheme was founded on 
such a presumption: and it seems to render the 
merit of M. Matthaei's system at best but equi- 
vocal. 

The great merit of M. Griesbach's scheme con- 
sists in the singular skill with which he covered the 
feeble points which were left exposed by his prede- 
cessours. His professed object was to establish the 



( 1S9 ) 
antiquity of the Alexandrine text, by the united 
testimony of Clement and Origen '^^ ; and to 
strengthen it by an alliance with the Western text, 
in order to form a counterpoise to the immense supe- 
riority in numbers on the part of the Byzantine 
edition '^^. Both the pillars are unsound on which 
this system is rested. The individual testimony of 
Origen^ proves nothing; as his readings are incon- 
stantj they no more prove the antiquity of the Alex- 
andrine text, than they do tliat of the Byzantine. 
The unity of testimony between him and Clement, 
is not more conclusive ; it no more proves that these 
early fathers quoted from one text, than it proves 
that Origen quoted from his preceptor. Their agree- 
ment with the Alexandrine text is fully as inde- 
cisive; it no more proves that they used that text, 
than it proves that Eusebius corrected it by their 
writings. The alliance between the Alexandrine 
and Western editions is equally beside the purpose ; 
it no more proves that they contain the genuine text 
of Scripture,, than it proves that Eusebius's text was 
brought from Palestine to Alexandria, and thence 
transported into the West, by the revisers of the 
Latin Version. 

In fine, the proofs of M. Griesbach conclude not 

**5 Giiesb, Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 234. Prseter Orlge- 
niana allegata simul ea etiam hie exhiberaus, quoe in scriptia 
Clementis Alexandrini oecurrupt.— merentur ipsius, utpote 
Origenis magistri, allegata cum Origenianis conferri. ULi 
utraque concinnu7it, certo iiobis constat de antiqiiissima lectione 
Alexandrince recensionis, 

*^ Vid. supr. p. U8. n '\ 



( 190 ) 

more strongly in favour of his own system^ than of 
that which I have ventured to propose. While the 
latter is thus far supported by his authority^ it is 
equally supported by that of Dr. Bentley and M. 
Matthaei ; as it builds^ with the one, on the united 
testimony of the Greek and Latin Church; and, 
with the other, on the general testimony of the 
Greek manuscripts. But it differs from both, in 
confirming the testimony of the Greek Vulgate by 
the coincidence of the primitive Latin Version. 
And thus it secures that object effectually, which M. 
Griesbach but imperfectly attained; as it has the 
testimony of numbers in the Greek Vulgate, of anti- 
quity in the Latin Version, and of consent in both 
taken together : and this evidence it possesses, not 
as the testimony of private men or particular 
churches, but as that of the two great Churches in 
the Eastern and V^estern Avorld, which were not 
merely witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, but the 
depositories of the evangelical writings. 



SECTION IV- 



vJF the three classes of text which exist in the 
Greek manuscripts^ it is^ I trusty by this time appa- 
rent^ that the Vulgar Greek is entitled to the pre- 
ference : as that alone which is supported by the 
uninterrupted tradition of the Eastern and Western 
Churches. Much^ however, remains to be ad- 
vanced in favour of this text, before it can be 
offered as a perfect rule of faith and manners. To 
qualify it for this end, its intei^rity must admit of a 
perfect vindication. This undertakings is indeed 
imperative, as its credit is involved in the impeach- 
ment of three remarkable texts'; which relate to 
points so essential to our religion, as the doctrine 
of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity. The 
defence of the Greek Vulgate, more particularly on 
these points, is of the greater importance, as involv- 
ing that of the doctrinal integrity of the Sacred 
Canon. 

' Griesb. Prasf» Nov. Test. ed. 1775. *•' Interim uni tamen 
dogmati eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera Jesu Christi 
Divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri possit nonnuliis, 
qui non solum locum istum celebratissimum 1 Joli. v. 7. e textu 
ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulgarem 1 Tim. iii. 16. (ut 
et Act. XX. 28.) dubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbitrio per- 
missam invenient." 



( 193 ) 

On the facilities afforded the first Bishops of 
Rome and Ephesus, to form perfect copies of the 
Scriptures of the New Testament, I have ah'eady 
spoken *. That a dispersion of the sacred books^ 
commensumte with the diffusion of the Gospel, took 
place from this period, is rendered not merel}^ pro- 
bable from the reason of the case, but is deducible 
from many facts expressly recorded. 

A brief inquiry into the state and history of the 
primitive Church will be sufficient to convince the 
most sceptical inquirer, of the constant and intimate 
intercourse which was preserved between the parti- 
cular branches of the Catholick Church, which were 
dispersed in the remotest regions. Those habits 
of communication were the necessary result of the 
Christian Polity having arisen out of the Jewish. 
The ceremonial observances of the synagogues, 
which were dispersed through the Gentile world, 
were subject to the controul of the Sanhedrim at 
Jerusalem ' ; and the obligation laid on the Jews to 
visit the Holy City periodically, facilitated the means 
of communication between the great council and its 
most distant dependencies '. That this intercourse 

* Vid. supr. pp. 111,112. 

^ Intimation was thus given of the regulation of the Jewish 
Calendar to the remotest synagogues ; Vitring. de Synag. Vet, 
Lib. II. cap. xii. § 4-. p. 599. ed. 1726. " Docet ibi Maimo- 
nides [Kiddush Hachod. cap. iv.] qua ratione annus Judaicus 
et a quibus intercalatus fuit ; a Principe nimirum Synedrii, cura 
quibusdam Sijnedrii dekgatis. Quo facto lite7'£U tnisscc sunt ad 
Synagogas omnes remotiorcs, nomine Principis Synedrii, quibus 
intercalatio ej usque rationes expositaj sunt. — Exempla ejus- 
modi literarum, nomine Rab. Gamalielis et Filii ejus Sime* 



( 193 ) 
%vas strictly maintained in the apostolical age, is 
rendered unquestionable by many passages in the 
apostolical history. Explicit mention is made of 
*' devout men out of every nation under heaven^/' 
who visited Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost; 
the number of the Jews who were not disqualified 
from joining in that festival, having been computed, 
from a census, made by the priests, at the requisi- 
tion of the Romans, to have been nearly three mil- 
lions ^ We consequently find, that, while the 
Jews confessed, on St. Paul's arrival at Rome, that 
they were acquainted with Christianity, as '' a sect 
which was every where spoken against^;'' they ex- 
pressed surprise that they had '' not received letters 
out of Judea, concerning^ '' the apostle. This neg- 
ligence, however, was soon remedied; when the 
rapid and extensive diffusion of the Gospel rendered 

onis editarum, reperies in Gemara Sanhedr. fol. 10. col. 2^ 
'0^ ♦n VKinv6, * Fratribus nostris habitatoribus Galilsese 
Superioris et Inferioris. Pax vestra augescat. Notum vobis 
facimus tempus abolitionis advenisse, ad auferendas decimas ex 
oleario.' Comp. Lightfoot Harm, of N. Test. P. II. p. 283. 

* Act.ii. 5. conf. 9, 10, 11. 

^ Joseph. De Bell. Jud. Lib. VII, cap. ix. J 3. Tom. II. p, 
399. ed, Havercamp. h^ ^\ l;)(^<y^£t Tocrary? n ttoAk, ^n^Qv IK ruf 

lluaxo^ xaX£?Taj, — ruv f^sv Bv[A.uruvy iUo(7i irivn {xv^iu^ag rifi^^'^a-avj 
wpo? ^e i^ay.iax''>^ix «J TFtvTUKdaiot, yivovrcct S' av^^wv, »/ Ixartf 

^^avTwv y^ uyicov. Conf. Lib. IL cap. xiv. § 3. 

* Act. xxviii. 22. 
7 Ibid. 21. 



( 194^ ) 

Christianity formidable to the Jewish nation. The 
concurring" testimony of Christian and Jewish wri- 
ters^ places it beyond a doubt^ that as early as 
the reign of the Emperour Claudius^ when the new 
converts were known under the appellation of Na- 
zarenes ^ a circular letter was sent from Jerusalem, 
enjoining the dispersed Jews to excommunicate the 
Christians^ under that title, in all their syna- 
gogues 9. 

^ Selden. de Synedrr. Vett. Ebraeorr. Lib. I. cap. vili. p. 12^. 
ed. 1679. " Certe ut Suidas ita Joannes Antlochenus, in 
Chronologicis suis nondum editis cum Euodii illic episcopatu 
Christiani nominis Antiochiae ortum conjungit, quern post de- 
cennium ab Ascensu Domini evenisse scribit, seu sub Clandii 
initia. Etiam et nominis autorem ibi Euodium ilium facit. 
Verba sunt : 'Ev ^l rous dpy^cus rris (iccaCkzias ra ajJrS KXa:/^/a 
'K.a.laixpoSy jtASTa to uvuT^vi^ix^y^vcci lov Kvfiov h^f-uv kJ ©eoy IvjaSv Xgifov, 
jw,£T« ET07 ^ixoc 9rpwTo? jM,ETa Tov ctytov Tlir^ov tov ATTOfoMv tjjv ^ii^oroviav 
•r^5 ETTKTJtoTTvjf T?? AvTto^siuv (xEya^vj? irohiuq t^<; "Lvfixq B>\u^et> 
"Etio^ioq yBv6[A£yioi Ilar^iuf^viq, Ka) Iwt avrS e^to-xoara X^iS^'avot 
fc'VO/xaffS'oOtJav, tS awrS l7ric7>to7ra Eyo^is 'TF^ocroixiXiicravToi; uvroTq xj 
i<7ti%<Ta.vroq to oi/ojxot tSto. YlpcvriV ya.p Na<^a/§aToi x^ r«A»Aarok 
iKokHvro o\ Xgifiavot. Comp. Act. xi. 1. 3. 22. 26. 2S. Peai'S. 
Expos, of Creed. Vol. II. p. 111. ed. Oxon. 1797. 

9 Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. p. 335. b. ed. Par. 1615. 
■— »^^' uq 'Tr^QtiTTovy av^^ois p(,s{§rov75(7avTs$" IxXsKTeq, £{$• naaoiv rm 
Oixapisvyjv iTniix-^ccr&y it^vaa-ovrxq ot», afpEcrt? tk aSso? x^ a,voy,o<; 
lyyiyi^rui «c9ro 'I'/5(7» Tivos' PaXiXa/a <»■^«^^s, Id. ibid. p. 234. b, 
ccirmreimrE yap to? ^ixaiov, »cj Trpo avrS t8? rtfoipyirccq avrS' x) y^v 
T»? IXTril^ovTccq ht avToVy not rov TrBfj^-^avrct avrov — aTi/AaC^sT£, 
xara^w/Asvoi Iv ra7s auva.yuya.7s v[Amv T»r TTtreiJovraf £7ri tov 
Xpis-ov. S. Epiphan. Heer. xxix. p. 124. c. Ov [/.ovov yap ol 
ruv la^ctiat 'TruThq w^o? t«t»$ [ray Na^wgata?] xUrnvron /amto?, 
»7^a avtraV-""' iV&J.&EV, xai ftsVij? vi[AE^a(;, kcs,) we^* t»?» lo-Trepai', Tp*^ 
t55? viAi^xcy ots Et'X'^'j g7r*T«A2(7(» iv rais avrojv Gwaywycas, 



( 195 ) 

At how early a period the Christian Church 
adopted this mode of communication from the Jew- 
ish PoHty^ must be apparent from the first council, 
held in the reign of the same Emperour^ at Jerusa- 
lem, after the model of the Jewish Sanhedrim "^ 
On that great revolution which took place in the 
divine economy, on the formal abrogation of the 
Jewish ceremonial, and the emancipation of the new 
converts from legal observances, that strong line 
of distinction was drawn between the Christians 
and Nazarenes, which gave to the new religion a 
new appellation, and exhibited Christianity in its 
extrinsick purity. On this occasion '' it pleased the 
apostles and elders and the whole church,'' assembled 
in council, '' to send chosen men,'' and '' to write 

c'ffaqSjvroci avtoTs, >i(z) (lv'X^r,ixa.rt^ii(Ji (ptia-KcvTs^, on £<7riyc<xr(zpa.6at 
o ©SOS" rss N«^a;§a(«f. accl yap tstok mpKroSrepov be^aai, ^mi 
TO uTTo Is^ociojv avTiiq ovroci;, 'Iricrtiv K'/,gva(7HV tivxi Xfifov, Comp, 

Lightf. ut supra, p. 278. 

'° Vitring. ub supr. p. 598. " An itaque non vides, Si/ne- 
drium hoc Hierosolyimitanum Christianum prorsus ordinatum esse 
ad formam Si/nedrii Hierosolymitani Judaici, et de omnibus 
rebus sacris in et extra Judaeam statuebat ; de omnibus Legis 
quaestionibus majoris inomenti judicabat : — Orta est quaestio non 
levis momenti, an Gentes salutis suae cupidae, fidem in Christum 
necesse haberent munire observantia Legis Mosaicae. De qua 
cum variae essent Doctorum sententiae, visum est Ecclesiis illius 
definitionem committere Senatui et Ecclesice Hierosoli/mitance, 
Qui postquam de hoc negotio decrevissent, Legatos cum Epis- 
tolls mittunt ad varias Ecclesias Gentium, quibus suam senten- 
tiam de proposita quaestione exponunt. Formam Literarum 
prorsus convcnit tijpis Literarum Si/nedrii*'* Comp. Lightf. ub, 
supr. p. 283, 

q2 



( 196 ) 

Utters by them"; in which a general dispensation 
was granted from Jewish ceremonies, and precau- 
tions were used to obviate some excesses, which 
might arise from the unlicensed abuse of Christian 
liberty '\ 

In such habits of intercourse, the Christian 
Church had already existed, for half a century, on 
the completion of the New Testament Canon '^: 
from the reign of Claudius, in the middle of the first 
age, to that of Domitian, near the beginning of the 
second. That in the latter period, this intercourse 
was stdl strictly maintained, is rendered certain by 
documents of unquestionable authority. St. Igna- 
tius and St. Polycarp, who lived at this period, and 
who enjoyed the intimacy, and succeeded to the la- 
bours, of the apostles, explicitly mention the custom 
of convening synods for the purpose of ordaining 
persons to convey circular letters through the differ- 
ent churches'*: and in this manner they took espe- 

" Act. XV. 22, 

'* Ibid. 23. 

" Vicl. supr. p. 121<.n. 3«. 

'* S. Ignat. Epist. ad Polyc. cap. vii. p. 42. ed. Cler. lYS-l. 

fccrovy xa» ^Siporoy7i(yat riVXy ov uyavrirov T^lav £%eT£ kccI ocoy.voVf 
fc'$ ^vyyj<7iTa.i ^so^po/xo; xuXtTcr^at* tStov Kdra^iuaccij Hvoc ^oqsv^Sif 
iU ^Vplacv ^ofaVij v[xuv Txv uoxvov uyuTrvik elq ^oiat X^»r5. Id. ibid, 
cap. viii. p. 42. 'E^rsi «»< 'nxacas rous BxyCkncious »>c r^vv^hrt't 
fypx-^aiy hci TO \^a.i<pvrii; 7r>^i7v fjit uirh Tpau^o^ tlq NbuttoMv, uq to 
^i?^niA.tt, ir^oarota-any yqi-^HS rouiS 'sfATTfa^ev EKKXinaiaif, uq ©eS 
yKJiJi.vjt xExTJj/xevo?, tlq to 5o avras to auro Troiriaai' ol fxh ^vvoi[xBiot 
Ors^wy 7[i(J,'^a.tf 0* ^E e^ts-oXaf ^ix rcjv Ctto era Tre/ATro/Aevwi', «»« 
$-Q^uff^vTi aluvM ifyay ui ct|ios Jv. S. Polycarp. Ep, ad Philipp» 



( 197 ) > 

cial care that their epistles should be generally dis- 
persed through the Christian world. Accounts of 
the martyrdom of those primitive bishops were thus 
transmitted to the most distant provinces^ in epistles^ 
attested with that care '^ which I formerly had occa- 

cap. xHi. p. 191. 'Eypci-^xri (xoi v.ou zJpcstV ^ 'Tyvarjof, Tva lav 

OTTB^ Tror/ia-Uj ix» ^ai^w xa»^o> ev^snvj iln tyu EiTE ov IlilJi-^OJ TT^SO"- 
^ivaovroc noti -rrtfi vi^uv, Tus sTii'iO'ku^ 'lyvar/a rois 9re/a(p^eiVa? 

rdvrri. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap, xxxvi. p. 132. 
1. 14. 25. sqq. et infr. p. 200. n. *^ et ^4. 

's Superscrip. Polycarp. Martyr, p. 195. *H IxvA'/j^/a r3 

©£«, ri TracqoiiiHGix. 2,oc,t^§vav, tvj ly.K7\naU tS ©eS t^ 'jrccpoiK^a-rt b 
<i>i\xh>.(pixy xoil 'TTccaaiS TOiS JiXToi TTccvTx TOTTOv rrjs uyUs od 
KaS'oXtH^jy 'EKKXr/a/ar Trccqotxixi^^ eXzoq, stp^>?, xat uyaicrt u'hq 
©eS narpo? xat t« Kvpi« :^^wi/ I>50-5 XprS TrA^jSf ySei',). Conf. Euseb. 

Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xv. p. 162. 1. 21. sqq. This form, 
which was adopted from the Circular Letters of the Jews, ap- 
pears to have been general ; Epist. Eccl. Goth, de Mart. S. 
Sabas. *' Ecclesia Dei quce est in Gothia Ecclesiae Dei quae est 
in Cappadocia, et omnibus Ecclesice CatJioUcce christianis ubique 
gentium habitantibus, misericordia, pax et charitas Dei Patris et 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi impleatur." ap. Sim. Metaphrast. 
And suitable care was taken that these Epistles should be deli- 
vered according to their superscription. In the Circular Let- 
ter of the Synod of Palestine, convened on the controversy 
which arose respecting the time of keeping Easter A.D. 190, 
the following charge is inserted ; Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xxv. 

p. 250. 1. 10. Kcclcc TO teXo? t?? 7p<»!p^?j uvroTq pyifjLoca-i BTri^tyacri 
ruvTx' T?5 ^E miro>>yig v)[j(.uv 7rEJ§a3"ajT£ xara Tixaocv exxXoKj/av 



f 198 ) 

sion to remark, was observed until the middle of the 
third century'^. 

After this view of so remarkable a part of the pri- 
mitive Ecclesiastical Polity, it must be nugatory to 
enter into a detailed proof, that the particular 
churches, dispersed throughout the Christian world, 
must have been possessed of correct copies of the 
Canonical Scriptures, from the earliest period. We 
are expressly assured by one who perused a collec- 
tion of those epistles preserved at Jerusalem '^ that 
numbers of the primitive pastors, who succeeded to 
the charge and labours of the apostles, traversed 
those distant regions which had been converted by 
the apostles, established churches in them, and deli- 
vered to them copies of the Gospels'^. The Epis- 

** Vid. supr. p. 115. n. **. Conf. Martyr. Polycarp. capp* 
XX. xxi. p. 203. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xv. p. 173. 
h 3. sqq. 

'7 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VL cap. xx. p. 284. 1. 20. 

At acct j^ETriroXa*, «? 'Trpoq aXA'^Aa? ^tsp^aparloi' ot T'^o'yioi not) in-iiKvi- 

£9rt TuvTo a-vvuyuys'tv ^i^vv'-^i^a, A list of the whole of those 
curious documents, which are expressly cited by Eusebius, may 
be seen in M. de Valois' edition, after p. 798. 

'8 Id. ibid. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 133. 1. 9. xat a^^o; yiv) 
nreroig wAsii?? iyvu^'.C^ovl^ xcclcc racroe, mv "TrpuTviv ra^iv t^j tuv 
^ATCOTo'Kuy i7rey(pv\i^ otad*o;^)7S* ol nai org fn^iKUvos. ovln; ^BoTrpunT^ 
M,a$>9la«, Ty? tixisc. woivloc tqttov ru» |v.xA>jc7tiyv Tr^oKaJa/SAjjSei/Jaf 
vTiro Twv ATToroAiiw SsaEX'ts? I'TTU-itooQ^ay' — tTrsHx ^l aTroo'/j/xia? r^^^^o- 
fxzvoi, i^yo» i'TrtliKav tvafysKi^uVf roTg £t» iru^'ta.v uvr,y.ooiq ra Tr,q 
iriftui 'Koye y.rt^y'flitv t&v X^iTov ^tXoI»//a|M,s)'0», x«4 T/iv Toiv ^cicov 



( 199 ) 

tles^ which constitute the remaining part of the 
Canon^ had been addressed to particular churches ; 
but the attention which the inspired penmen had 
employed to authenticate '^^ and to disperse their 
writings *°: and the care which the primitive 
churches used in obtaining and circulating the com- 
monest documents ^% renders it morally certain^ that 
the whole Scripture Canon of the New Testament 
must have been dispersed as widely as the Chris- 
tian name^ within a short period of its first publi- 
cation. 

As we derive our proofs of the authenticity of the 
Scriptures from the tradition of the Church; we 
deduce those of their integrity from the universal 
dispersion of the sacred writings. From the con- 
stant communication which was maintained between 
the churches^ which had been planted by the apos* 
ties, and were the immediate depositories of their 
writings, it was impossible that any authentick work, 
which proceeded from them^ could have existed in 
one churchy without having been communicated to 
another. The intercourse between the Syriack 
Greek and Roman Churchy was of the closest kind, 
under the immediate successours of the apostles; 
some of whom were vested with the government of 
particular churches, at the very time in which the 
Scripture Canon was perfected. St. Clement, the 
companion of St. Paul,, communicated with the Co- 

'5 Vid. 2 Thes. iii. 17. comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 
Col. iv. 18. 

*° Vid. Col. iv. 16. 1 Thes. v. 27. 

!* Vid. supr. p. 196. n. ^ p. 197. n. *^ p. 115. n. '\ 



(200 ) 

rinthian Church, from Rome"; St. Polycarp, the 
disciple of St. John, visited Rome, and corresponded 
with the Syrian Church from Smyrna*'; and St. 
Ignatius, his contemporary and friend, not only 
communicated with the churches of Ephesus and 
Rome**, but visited both in person *^ In the epis- 

" S. Iren. adv. Heer. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 176. Mela t5toi> 
ee r^iru tottw utto rm LtfotoXuv t^v svianoTrnv xXvjgSrai KX-rj/XTlS", o 

« ixovo^y £Tt ya,^ •ttoXXo) vTTsXEiTrotlo Tore vtto tu» utto^oXuv oioioocy^ivoi, 
Ett* thth hv tS KXi^^Evlof, Toco'icoq ^y. oXiyri^ ToTq Iv Ko^UBu yivoiAevviq 
uh?>(poTq £7ri<ieiXsv ri ev 'Pfc/pcY) lytyCkriGioc \yta.vuroirm y^acp-^v Torf 
Ko^jv^/oif — Conf. S. Clem. I. Ep. ad Cor. cap. i. p. 146. Eu- 
seb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. vi. p. 217. 1. 12. 

*^ Vid. supr. p. 196. n. '*. S. Iren. adv. Ha?r. Lib. HI. cap. 
iii. p. 176. Tli>.vK<x^7ro; ^l a (xovov viib aTros-oXcov fAa^nrsv^^Uf 
ata; c7fvai'ar^a(p£t? ttoXXoTi; rov K^irov lufiooiovii', uKkoi. xa< viro 
Avrsro^i'v xccloiS'cx.^Bi? lU tjjv Aerial' iv rrj h H^v^vn lKK?^ria-i» 
i'o^ia-y.Q'Troqj ov xcci ^/u-g<V ^ci}pcczojA,iv h Tr^&'rvj >3,w&Jv ^Aixios. — £7r; AviKvtra 

vr^oq <t)iX»7r'7r>5C7-ias yty^a.ijt,[j(,ivvi a, T. I. Conf. S. Polycarp. Epist, 

ad Philipp. cap. xiv. p. 191. Euseb. Hist. Eccl, Lib. IV. cap. 
xiv. p. 16L1. 1. 14. 34. 

*^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxxvi. p. 130. 1. 9. 

O wapa '7r><iiroiq tltriri tvv ^loc^ot^oq lyvanoq, rvtq accr * Avlio-^mtv 
Ciccoop^vig oiVTB^oq 7r,v iTrKry.OTTTiv XExX^jpWjW-Evof. — Outu ovitoc iv "Eixvpvri 
yivo^tvoqy tv^ct o JJoXvy.a^Ttoq nv, (Aiacv /X£V £7ri<iOXriV rri xocra, TYtV 
jLi^eaov ^JixXyjaix yqa.(pEiy Troi^ivoq ulr'riq /xyvjjw.ofe^ojj' Ov*jj-i^«* Irspav 
Ti TY) Iv Mccyvr/a-ia. «, T. I. U^oq ravruiq oc rri 'PoufjiYi sycKXriaix 
7§a(pe<. Conf. S. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephess. capp. i. ii. pp. 43, 44. 
Ep. ad Rom. cap. x. p. 74. S. Iren. adv. Hser. Lib. V. cap. 
xxviii. p. 327. Euseb. ubi supr. p. 132. 1, 8. 

*' S. Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes, cap. xxi. p. 52. U^ocrevxicrBt 

VTre^ rriq iKK?^V)<riaq rviq Iv St/^ia* o0£v dioijji^hoq tig Puj^y,v ocTtocyoixai 

Id. Ep. ad Trail, cap, xiii. p. 68. Aaira^f^cn vi^Siq r, ayxir-n 



( 201 ) 

ties addressed by those primitive bisliops to those 
different churches^ much more is implied than tliat 
they were possessed of the inspired writing's. St 
Poly carp speaks of the Philippians as versed in the 
Scriptures^ while he quotes the Old and New Tes- 
tament"'^; and St. Ignatius^ in impu^nin^ some 
tenets of the early hereticks, appeals to the '' Gos- 
pels" and the '' Apostles *^/' under which terms the 
whole of the Christian Canon may be properly in- 
cluded. 

If we may now assume, wliat it seems vain to 
deny^ that any two of those churches possessed per- 
fect copies of the Scriptures^ which were apparently 
possessed by the Catholick Church ; we have thus a 
sufficient security, in the testimony which they re- 
spectively bear to the integrity of the sacred text, 
that it could not be corrupted. Admitting* that all 
the members of any particular church had entered 
into a compact to corrupt the inspired writings, and 
without this unanimity any attempt of the kind must 
have been liable to be defeated by a few dissentient 

D/xypcaiwv y.a) 'E.Cpiaaoy. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ubi Slipr. p, 
130.1. 12. 

*^ S. Polyc. Epist. ad Philipp. cap. xil. p. 191. *' Confido 
enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris litteris, et nihil vos latet ; 
mihi vero non est concessum modo. lit his Scriptur/s dictum 
est * Irascimini et nolite peccare :'• et * sol non occidat super 
iracundiam vestram.' Beatus qui meminerit : quod ego credo 
esse in vobis." Conf. Ps. iv. 5. Eph. iv. 26. 

.*^ S. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadd. cap. v. p. TS* '7r^o<T(pvyuv tw 



( 202 ) 

members; still they must have wanted authority to 
influence other churches to become a party in the 
conspiracy. But the different interests which di- 
vided every particular congregation must have ren- 
dered such an undertaking wholly impracticable. 
Within less than a century after the pubhcation of 
the apostolical writings, the sect of the Montanists 
arose, in the very bosom of the church, and spread 
itself from Phrygia to Gaul and Africa''. As these 

*8 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. ili. p. 212. 1. 39. rl^v Sf 
aitx(pl rov Movravov xat AT^mBi^^hv xai eso^orov, 7re§i rw <^^uylccv 
aoli T©Te TTfUTov Tr,v W£^i t5 >7rfo(pr^ivnv l-TToXri-^yiv wafct iroT^oT^ 

al^iq ol xacrai rriv JPac7J^ixv &,^£X(poiy rr,v t^tai* a^iaiv xou tts^) tstwv, 
evXcc0^ xul o^^Q^o^o^olurr.v lirola.'tliiaiv* SK^iixsvoi xj tuv vocp' uvToTq 
TfAatoSfiyli-'V [^.x^v^uv ^l(x(p6piiS £7ri<iOXocS, ccq iV ha-fA.o'i'q m VTrup^ofic^t 

^EKev'^E^CO TW tote ^FcOlJiOcicOV STTtQ-XOTrCJ, T?$ TUV lx.yih-n(7iUV sl^'^vvii 

tny.oc ap£3-/3£tovl£?. Eleutherius is mentioned by Hegesippus, ap. 
Euseb. Lib. IV. cap. xxii. p. 182. 1. 19. and S. Irena^us Lib. IH. 
cap. iii. p. 176. as bishop of Rome, when they flourished. Of 
Hegesippus, Eusebius declares, that he Hved in the first succes- 
sion after the apostles. Hist. Eccl. Lib. H. cap. xxiii. p. 78. 1. L 
and St. L'encEUs will speak for the antiquity of his own testi- 
mony, vid. supr. p. 200. n. *^. conf. infr. p. 216. n. ^^ Euseb. 
Lib. V. cap. xx. p. 238. 1. 36. From the history of Tertullian, 
who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. in 
Luc. Tom. L p. 121, we may not only collect, that Montanism 
liad spread to Africa, but that if the Church had betrayed its 
trust in corrupting the Scriptures, the sacrilege would have been 
exposed by the hereticks ; Hier. ibid, in Tert. p. 126. " Ter- 
tullianus presbyter,— provinciae Africse, civitatis Carthaginiensis, 
&c. Hie cum usque ad mediam aetatem Presbyter Ecclesice 
permansisset, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanae 
Ecclesiac, ad MoBtani dogma delajmiSy in multis libris novcs 



( 203 ) 

hereticks were every where mingled with the Ca- 
thohcks^ and used the same Canonical Scriptures, 
they must have discovered any attempt to corrupt 
their integrity. Nor could they have wanted the 
inclination to expose it ; as the Catholicks convened 
synods against them^ condemned their doctrines, and 
expelled them from their communion ^^ But^ in 
the mutual recrimination to which their differences 
gave rise, the hereticks no where accuse the catho- 
licks, who derided their ''New Prophecies^"'' of 
corrupting the sacred oracles. 

Let us even suppose this difficulty surmounted, 
and that the catholicks and hei^eticks, forgetting 

propheiice meminit : sjpeciaViter autem adversum Ecclesiam texuit 
volumina, De Pudicitia, De Persecutione," &c. In fine, Euse- 
bius observes on the origin and extent of this sect, and their 
disaffection towards the Church ; Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. 

Xvi. p. 230. 1. 5. oAiyoi y r/uav aroi tuv ^^vyuJv i^vi'Trccl'/i^Avot, 
TTJv ^£ xaS^oXa >c^ tcolgccv Tr,v viih tov npccvo)) sayJ^nalacv /SXacff^prj/xerv 
oioa.a-Kov\oq TH ocTrvivBu^ia-fjLBvii "Jri/svixcclocj oTi [xrtrt TifJt.7]V fxriTZ 
gra^o^ov EK ecvTviv TO -^Bv^oTi-poipeliKOV eXdix^uvs Ti^VSVfXOi. Vid. 
infr. p. 208. n. ^'', 

^^ Besides the Synod in Gaul, already mentioned, supr. n. ^^. 
conventions were held against the Montanists, at Ancyra, An- 
tioch, and in many parts of Asia ; vid. Euseb. Plist. Eccl. Lib. 
V. capp. xvi. xix. p. 228. 1. 13. p- 236. 1. 22. Respecting these 
Synods, a contemporary writer observes ; Apolinar. ap. Euseb. 

lb. cap. xvi. p. 230. 1. 10. ruv yocp y.ula, Tr,v Acriccv TTi^uv '^ro'AXa.zi^ 

?,6y8q i^iioiffuvluv y.ca ^s^yiT^ag ci7ro(P'fivd-Jicov oy (x.7ro^ox.i/j.oi0oivrcijv , 
rr,v ai^cUiv, ^tu ^b rrjg re IxxXnijlcc^ B'E£U!(yQri(7aVy >C, rrjs noiycoviscs 
i\'pX^rt>yav. Conf. Ibid. p. 227. 1. 33. sqq. 

^° Vid. supr. n.^l Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl, Lib. V. cap. xvi, 
p. 229. 1. 4. sqq. cap. xviii. p. 233. I. 33. sqq. 



( 204 ) 

their mutual animosities, had agreed to corrupt the 
Scriptures ; still the disagreements which arose be- 
tween different churches, must have rendered any 
attempt on the integrity of Scripture wholly abor- 
tive, by leaving it open to detection. A difference 
of opinion, respecting the time of keeping Easter^ 
interrupted the unanimity which had long subsisted 
between the Greek and Roman Churches '^ ; and to 
such an extent was their mutual animosity carried^ 
that the Western Church proceeded to the extre- 
mity of excommunicating the Eastern ^^. A like 
diversity of opinion, at a period somewhat later, di- 
vided the Roman and African Churches on the sub- 
ject of baptizing hereticks^^ Had there existed 

3^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xxiii. p. 241. I. 26. 

'ZjViTYiGiOOS ^riTO. y.ccrcc Tiiah [_^ixa-ru ys /m'/jv t*3? Ko/aoJs ^oca-iXsioti 
tT«t] » o/Jiiy.pois avaxjvTiS's/arjS', oVt ^n t^? 'Aa-iccg uTrxcrn^; ul 9ra- 

ft;ovTO ^aTv i^rt t5j? t2 o-ujTYi^'i8 I\cx,n%x koqrr,s 'na.qa<^v\<x.r%iVy 
h -^ Bvsiv TO TTfo'iSalov 'ly^aiof,' Tr^ovjyopEflo. The Emperour Corn- 
modus came to the throne A.D. 180. about 60 years after the 
death of Trajan, and 70 after that of St. John the Evangehst ; 
see the testimony of St. Irenseus, supr. p. 112. n. ^ who took 
a part in the controversy before us ; Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 
Lib. V, cap. ix. p. 222. 1. 20. cap. xxii. p. 241. 1. 5. 7. 14. cap. 
xxiv. p. 245.1. 9—17. 

^"' Euseb. ibid. cap. xxiv. p. 245. 1. 3. IttI rkroiq o i^Xv t5;j 

*Vo}ij.a.'\.uv 7r^osToJ<; BiJ'.Ta;p uBfoaq T^? 'Aaiccq ntccanfi »[/.«. rcuq of^o^oiq 

33 Euseb. ibid. Lib. VH. cap. ii. p. 322. 1. 18. raro; ^Jj i:rB(pavu, 



( 205 ) 

any ground of accusation against any of those 
churches, on this head, it seems wholly inconceiva- 
ble, that it could have escaped being urged : no such 
charge however is insinuated even obliquely against 
any of those churches. 

Though the proofs which are here adduced in fa- 
vour of the integrity of the sacred text, are merely 
negative ; they must be allowed to be fully adequate 
to its vindication. On the present subject, positive 
proofs cannot be easily produced, and cannot be re- 
quired in reason ; any formal defence of the inte- 
grity of the inspired writings, in the primitive age, 
would indeed defeat its object, by conveying a sus- 
picion that it needed vindication. But as no ground 
of suspicion existed, we find no defence undertaken. 
That which was unquestionable from the first was 
received without exciting a doubt ; and silence on 
this subject conveys a sufficient proof of inte- 
grity. 

It may be shewn, however, that the integrity of 
the inspired writings was an object of attention and 
research at a period so early, that if it had been at 
all suspicious, it could not have escaped detection. 
The extraordinary circumstances which attended 
the ministry of our Lord and his immediate follow- 
ers, had given rise to many narratives, founded on 
traditionary accounts, in which some truth was re- 
tained with a great admixture of errour ^^. A num- 

«v al^ecrsu;; ETrjrpe'poj'la,', ^^a ^a]f)5 xat^jti^aJV. Conf. capp. ill. iv, 
p. 323. 1. 5. sqq. 

^* Orig. Horn. I. in Luc, Tom. III. p. 932. d. To fx({loi 



C 20G ) 

ber of spurious works of this description were com-''^ 
posed, particularly by the hereticks, who infested 
the Church from the earliest age ; and, under the 
title of Gospels and Acts, were inscribed with the 
names of different apostles ". Besides these, many 
of the writings of the apostles* companions, had been 
read in different churches ; and had thus become a 
part of the authorised text, though not of the Cano- 
nical Scriptures '^. In discriminating between these 

^cohy.iz "EvoifysXiov ot avfy^ci-^avlsq iTrs^il^r^crav* ^zfiloci ^\ to nuioe. 
Qa)(ji,ciu 'EvcifyiXiov* v)^v) ol iT;o7\^Y,at koX Bacrt^Et^yj^ yfu-^oii xala 
'EucnXiQriv EvcifyiXioi* <7ro7\.>^ol (Av kv svs^Bi^rjO-av «^ nxTot MalBiocVf 
i^ ciXXoe, 'jrT^eiovoc, Euseb. Hist. Ecclcs. Lib. III. cap. XXV. p. 
118. 1. 34. 'Ev roTq »5-^o;? Kcclcilflx^^u x^ run ^at;^8 9rpa|fwv ri 
ypa,(pn — i^ ocrroKoi^V'^ig Ubt^h* — vi^n ^ £» raToi? Ttve? xj to xa$* 
*E^cai»j E^aiysAtcv )ioc\s>,sioiVf u i/.oi>.iroc E^^atluv ol rov Xptfo? 

m'«'Oa,h^<x[jLivoi y^cA^eai. trscvTcc (Av 'jravloc 7u» oiilzMyoyAvuif a» 

if 

^^ Euseb. ib. p. 119. I. 10. uvci,yy.cc'icoq l\ zoil TaT&'f o[A.uq rl» 

xccrccT^oyov 'TTiTCoiri^i^ot, jV iloivxi t^oiy.z» ayra? T£ T0tV7a,f 

■>C, Tar ovo/xart raJv 'A7rofo?>.&;v 'npo^ ruv *AI§stikcc;v iipoa" 

TiiTQ^q uTO^uv E-JufyBXicc 7r£pjE;^ycrac» ri uq Av^fsa ol xal 'luavva 
y.cd Tuv oM\u)y " Aituro'^biv '^px^sic, uv e^ln H^aiiuq Iv a-i<ly^a,(A.[AOilt 
rav xulx ^tu^o^ccq hK^^na-iud^tHuv Tij uirt^ £»; f.v^/;A»jy uyctyuv 

^ Id. ibid. cap. iii. p. 90. J. 7. 'E'm) ^\ 6 alroq ^A'kqto'^oi; Iv 
Toi? ETTt TeA£» vip(7(y,aea-i t5j; wpoj 'Pw/^aia^ I^vviayiv TrsTroivjIat (xilot 
tZt aXhuv net) *Ep/ji«, s (pa(74v v'Tca.fyjuv to r« Tloi/xsvoy' (^i^XioV 
— oSev Yi^ri 5c £V h/.Y.7^%aixis \afXBV acvro lc^rifji.o(Tisvof/.ivQVj 
KCcl tuv iiaT^aiSla.TUV avfya(peui> y.E^pYiiA,sns<; Tiva? OrVTo) ita,reiKr,(px, 

Id. ibid. cap. xxv. p. 119. 1. 2. axX wpo? tsto»j vi ^e^optEvrj 
Bapva/3a CTTi^oX^, xa< t«v 'ATroroAfc'v at h£y6[A.evai oiox^cti- 
Tocvrct ira.v\oc. tuv uHi^syoi^svuv av ei»j, ava-yKaiwg ol ku) THrui 



( 207 ) 

apocryphal works and the authentick Scriptures, 
the antieiits have stated the grounds on which they 
rejected the former and admitted the latter ; they 
have thus enabled us to judge of the adequacy of 
that evidence, on the authority of which they esta- 
blished the Canon. 

In selecting a period out of the primitive ages, 
which is best calculated to aiford us satisfactory in- 
formation on this subject, our attention is immedi- 
ately attracted to that which produced the contro- 
versy relative to Easter. As this is a period in 
which party spirit ran high ^\ it is a crisis which is 
likely to put us in possession of the truth, by exhi- 
biting both sides of the question. It is likewise dis- 
tinguished by the number of learned and inquisi- 
tive men, who adorned Christianity by their lives, 
and supported it by their writings ; by many whose 
w^orks have descended to our times. The synods 
which were convened almost simultaneously in the 

ruv ky.xXn(yix<iixuJv yifvco<yy.oiJisyas, Id. ibid, cap. xvi. p. I07. 
1. 18. Ttfra ^i) ev t5 JLXrnfxsvros liJ.oXoyHiAm fxioc sTTi^oK^n 

^e^Tipcofjieypcs'vTjv Tr^X^it ts j^ nxb' r^^^s avTHS syvcofj^ev. 
That the Epistle of St. Barnabas (of which Eusebius speaks less 
positively, than of the " Pastor" of Hermas, and the Epistle of 
St. Clement) was read in the Church, is apparent from St. Je- 
rome's tract De Nominn. Hebraicc. Tom. III. p. 534. in which 
it is annexed to the Apocalypse, as a part of the authorized 
text. 

^7 Vid. supr. p. 20-1. nn. ?' et ^\ 



( 208 ) 

most remote provinces ^^ would constitute a suffi- 
cient proof of the close communication which was 
maintained by the Christian Pastors at this early 
period : if the remains of their circular letters which 
have been preserved, did not put it out of dispute^ 
that they considered it a matter of conscience to 
make a provision, that the result of their delibera- 
tions should be communicated to the remotest 
branches of the Catholick Church ^^. At this period 
Narcissus, who, at an advanced age, had Alexander 
for his suffragan, was bishop of Jerusalem '^'^ ; Poly- 
crates, Serapion, Demetrius, Victor, and St. Ire- 
iiseus, respectively settled at Ephesus, Antioch, Alex- 
andria, Rome, and Lyons, were vested with the 
government of the principal churches in the Asia- 
tick, Syriack, Egyptian, Italick, and Gallican pro- 

3^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xxiii. p. 242. 1. 11. 

Y,iiOoci ^v) xa* ffvyy.polfto-iiq I'may.oituv lir) tuvtov [_tq ^£p< t5 Tlaa-^» 
^v^lijaa] lyUovlo' irocyizq nrt yAo, yvujxri a/ £'7r»ro?^«^i' Ixn^^yiaiuriiiif 

l^oyucc roTc vavlctp^pa-s otalt'TrSvIo . ^ifilai ^' ilffin vvv tuv Kwra. 

lloL'Xa.iT^r/tV rrjViy.u^B a-vy/.tx^olyjuivuv y^utpr,, av 9r^aT£T«xT0 ©io^tAo^ 
TJj? ev K.cucraft'ia, Trapoiy/ia? sTiiaxoTroq, y.cn l<i apy.icra-oq T'^f Iv lepofl"©- 
hvi/,oi<,* y.al raiv IttI ^Vu^j.rtii ^i o^oiuq u'Khvi mf) t5 a^rS C,v^rjj/,ciloqy 
tTricTKO'Teov Bt«]opa ^YiT^eau* ruv tb nwroi Tldvlov liriay.o'JTUV uv Iloi.7^^ci% 
l}^ uoyjuQry.Toq "TrparsTaxTO* y.u) tuv nala. r«X/\jav ^s "Trapoixjwy, 
a; 'LlcTtiixCoq I'Trsay.oTrn' sTi th tuv nalu, O(7po'/3V55V you ras ly.ii(jz icoknf^* 
y,a\ loi(>}<; Ba>;.;n^^^^tf tvJj Ko^iiBiuv Exx^^5C7■^«? £7r»crxo9ry, x«* 9rA£»rfc-ir 

25 Vid. Euseb. ut snpr. p. 197. n. '^ infr. n. ^^, 

'^° Vid. supr. n. 3^. Alexandr. Epist. ad Antinoitt. 'Aacra* 

Toy UBuh, xct) tvv a-vvi^trn^o^ivoq /xoi ^i« tuv «^%wi', IxaTof 

hxu\^ hvi hvxaif X. T. £, Vid. Euseb. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xi» 
p. 268. 1. 17. sqq. 



( §09 ) 

vlnces*'. Among the writers celebrated at that 
period, we particularly distinguish Pantsenus and 
Clement, of Alexaadria ^'^ ; Origen, afterwards pres- 
byter, of Palestine "^S* Caius, presbyter of Rome'^^; 
St. Ireneeus, then bishop of Lyons; and TertuUian, 
presbyter of Carthage '•^^ From the joint testimony 
of witnesses thus competent, and thus widely dis- 
persed, the most unanswerable body of evidence 
may be deduced in favour of the integrity of the 
Canonical Scriptures. 

In the first place, the integrity of the sacred wri- 
tings was, at this period, the subject of particular 
investigation. The Marcionites, a sect which was 
particularly opposed by St. Irenaeus and Tertul- 
lian, had rejected the principal part of the Canon^ 
and corrupted the remainder*^; and the Theodo- 
tistSj who had been excommunicated by Victor*^, 

♦' Vid. supr. n. '^, Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xix. p. 236. 1. 20. 

Iwir^AJ) Tij Trpof Kufixov t^ Itoyrix.6v* h »5 ^nv^vvuv huI ccvra^ 7'^r 
uvrviv ^Tu¥ ^^vyuv'^ al'^scrtv, IwtAs'ys* rotVTa, "O^ruq ^\ y.ot,) tsto 
»'^r;Te, 0T» TYii nJ/f^Sf tavTnq r(x^iu<; T^s E7r<xaA8jt>t£»5j$ * viaq 7r^o^)}l£»a?,* 

i^juvy X.T.I. 'Ev Totvrvi ^\ Tn tS ^otpxTriunoq iTrtroA^, x^ vTroa-ri^nuffstq 

-♦* Vid. infr. p. 209. n. ". 

*3 Vid. infr. p. 210. n. ^\ Conf. supr. p. 12. n. *\ 

'^'^ Euseb. ib. Lib. IL cap. xxv. p. 83. 1. 36. xa» lxK^^(r^a^»xo^ 

ecv-n^ r«i'os oi/o[/.cc KOila Xt(pvpmi' Puf/.ix'iuv ytyifnuq tTriaxoTTov' oq ^>j 
IIpoxAw xala ^pvyxq 'TTpo'irccfJi.si'U yvu^m 6[y^ix(pui ^»aAe;i^S£*f, x. t. I. 

♦' Vid. supr. p. 202. n. ^^ 

^* Vid. supr. p. 53. n. '\ 

^^ Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xxviii» p. 252. 1. 27,— B/xrw^ 

P 



( 210 ) 

and refuted by Caius, had systematically corrupted 
the sacred writings ^^ From the remains of Caius, 
and the works of Tertullian^ it appears^ that both 
these antient fathers had carefully collated the ge- 
nuine and the adulterated copies ^^ Alexander and 
OrigeUj who were friends and correspondents ^% 
were professed collectours of books; the former 
founded, at his own expence, the library at Jerusa- 
lem ^'^ and the latter laid the foundation of that at 
Caesarea^*. Pantaenus and Clement^ who had been 
intimates of Alexander and Origen ^^, were travel- 

roy CKvlix ®£0^oloVf rov oc^^riyov t^ wccli^oi ruvTVjq T^iq ufWiO'tBiH 
ccvoi-uiTioci;, d'^SKTOfV^s TYiS xotvwv/af, 'n-furov smovlce. •\'i>.09 o^vB^uttop 
TO* Xptroti—— 

'*^ Id. ibid. p. 253. 1. 37. raTo;; l7rKrvvoi-\'a[Ae» x^ a,h%a.q wepJ 
tuiv ocvruv t5 ayTtf avf'yfa.(piiji; [Pa/a ^ri>M^yi'] (puvuq, tStov i^kcraq 

, ^^ Caius ap. Euseb. ibid. p. 2.54-. 1. 16. E» ya§ tk BsXr.an 
cvyy.oyiAa-uq uinuv iH-dra rot a.v\iypx(pcc i^sloi^enf Vfoq a^^^^^a, xala 
9roXu a,v eypoi ^ioc^ov^vlx, uffi[j.ipuva, y^v trai to, Ac7xX>37r»«d» roTq 
OeoooTS, — TTxTnv ^\ TaTo»5 rd E^^o^t^a a <7Vi/ciaBi. ru ycc^ ATroXXwfia 
^^e uvlci luvloTq In crv[ji.^uva, sver* ya^ av[y.^7vui Toi 'npors^ov liv uvruv 
y.oilxo-y.ivcia-^svleti roTq vr^eov waAtc l7rt^iar^a^E*Vi, x^ £t'p£~» xoclwrro^.v 
uTTcc^ovla. Vid. supr. p. 146. n. ^^. Tertullian's testimony will 
be more particularly considered hereafter. 

5° Vid. infr. n. ^\ '" 

5' Vid. supr. p. 198. n. '\ 

5* Vid. supr. p. 84-. n. '^ 

" Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VL cap. xiv. p. 274. 1. 14. 
JJuX^v y I ^vjAw^sj? 'A>\s^av^pQq t» KX75//,evToy «|Ua ^l x^ Ttt Ylocvroci\u 

7svo//,e'vwv ruv av^uv, Conf. cap. xi. p. 269. 1. 24. Id. ib. cap. 

Ti. p. 264. 1. 4. Yldvlaivov ^l K?k^|x>j? ^tcch^a-iABVos Tijj xar' AT^t^uvm 
^gciay xoiln^y}a-BCif<; — xaSi^ysTro. us t^ Tov 'ilpy/vjiy tuv ^oUr^lut uut3 
nccTosi 9v[a. yi)iiaBoii x»t. i. 



( 211 ) 

lers^ and curious enquirers into the subject under 
discussion. The former^ in a mission undertaken 
to India^ on which he was deputed by Demetrius, 
successour to Julianus^ in the see of Alexandria, 
there saw the Gospel of St. Matthew, as originally 
written in Hebrew, which was preserved from the 
times of St. Bartholomew, the apostle of India ^'••. 
And the latter, who was Alexander's messenger 
from Jerusalem to x\ntioch, has perpetuated the tra- 
dition, which he received from an elder named 
Macarius, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
that it was originally written by St. Paul, in the 
same language, but afterwards translated into Greek 
by St. Luke the Evangelist ^^ These facts will 
sufficiently evince the wide dispersion of the sacred 
writings, and the attention which was devoted to 
the subject before us, at this truly primitive pe- 
riod ^^. With respect to Origen, his testimony 

"^^ Euseb. ibid. Lib. V. cap. x. p. 223. 1. 15.— 5 uJivlumT xj 
eIj" IvdbS' sX9"eiV P^eyilon* svBa, T^oyoq svpeiv avTOV i:^o(p^a,a-av tw avrS 
'jrapaa-iuv, ro xocrx vAar^a7ov EvoifyiKiov, iraoa, riaiv ainoBi rov 
"KfiTov iinyvuiioaiv' oi? Bap^o^o^a^ol^ ruv *A9ro^o^w» ivcx, HVjpv^cci* 
avroTq 7£ \0^xiuv y^ix^i/LCKXtv t^v t« MaTJa/a xaTaXst\{/at y^ai^rlv" 
jjv xj aul^sa-Bat tU Tov JyjAa/z.Evoj' ^^ovov, Conf. S. Hicr. Cat. Scripp. 
Eccless. in Pantaen. Tom. I. p. 124. 

" Id. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273. 1. 8. xul rrj* 'jr^k 'E^pams 

E^pxiKYi (pcjvij* Aaxwv ^£ (pi?\oll[A.o}q ccvTrtV ^Si^^Y^vi.va-xv\a.f U^avai 
To7q ^EXA'/3<7»i'* o^£v TO* a^Tov xf'^'^"' £^f'0"X£cr$a* xetiu rnt e^iA-ntiiuVf 

'cetvTViq re tij? tTrtr&^'J?, *^ Toj* Ilpci^iav. Elra v<xo^oi<; l<7n?^syn* 

Hd>} d£ u<; MocKocfioq IXsys TTpEcr^yTEpoc, x. t. e, Conf. Lib. III. 

cap. xxxviii. p. 134. L 20. 

^^ The facts which have been related, on the authprlty of 

.f2 



( 212 ) 

ti^ould be of itself sufficient to establish all that it i§ 
my object to evince. Throtig-h motives of curiosity 

Justin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus, relative to tlie wide 
dispersion of the name of Nazarenes, and to the discovery of a 
Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in India, supr. p. 194. 
n^. p. 211. n. ^*. afford each other mutual confirmation, and 
form an extraordinary proof of the wide and early dispersion 
of this Gospel, within a few years of our Lord's ascension: vid. 
supr. p. 194. n. *. The Scriptures were written as the new 
converts were able to receive them. Previously to the formal 
abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial, and the admission of the 
Gentile converts to the full participation of the Christian privi- 
leges, St. Matthew's Gospel contained as perfect a view of the 
New Religion, as the infant Church was calculated to receive ; 
Gomp. Act. xi. 1 — 4. sqq. And this Gospel, in insisting parti- 
cularly on the name of Nazarene, Matt. ii. 23. appears to me 
to contain internal evidence of having been written previously 
to this period, before the name of Christian was at all used ; vid. 
Act* ib. 26. It may be further observed, in illustration of this 
curious subject, that Apollonius, a primitive father, who flou- 
rished within 80 years after the death of St. John, relates, on 
the authority of tradition, that the Apostles were enjoined by 
our Lord not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years: Euseb. 
Hist. Eccl. Lib. V.^cap. xviii. p. 236. 1. 8. iVt ^e w? U -n-upoi^o. 

ATTos-oXoiCy £911 ^u^sxoc gTeffi (j^'Ti y^upia^Yivoii T'/jy 'IspHffAXrif/,. 
With this account accords the opinion of the Greek Church, 
relative to the Gospel of St. Matthew. This work was sup- 
posed to have been written about eight years after our Lord's 
Ascension, In Hebrew, for the early converts ; but translated 
into Greek by St. John, when the Church was emancipated for 
its subjection to the Jewish ceremonial. Schol. in Matt, xxviii. 
20. e Cod. Vat. 361. 363. et all. multt. to kcctu MarSaro* 

itccpoc, Iwavvfcf. ap. Birch. Nov. Test. p. 181. Conf. Griesb. 
Symbb. Critt. TorA. I. pp. Ixv. civ. 



( 213 ) 

he visited Rome^^ and was deputed on a mission to 
Arabia '%• and from the discovery which he made of 
some obscure versions of the Hebrew Scriptures ^^ 
it might be inferred, that he was a diligent inquirer 
into the authority of the New Testament. But his 
testimony may be collected not merely by implica- 
tion, but from his express declarations. He has 
drawn the justest line between the canonical and 
the apocryphal books ^°; has ascribed the former 

5' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 274. 1. 27. 

xala Ta<7^£ Ttfj %^o*'«? 'T^? Pajxalcov IzxXvia-iccq vjySfjJvyy s7^^^Y|[J.'>^aa^ 
Trj Pw/A*} Kocl ccvt6<; 7r« y^ai^si >.iyu)v, EjVZOcij.svos T'/iv d^yonoroirr,'* 

'AXi^div&fiBiav. 

'^ Id. ibid. cap. xix. p. 283. 1. 20. i'^r^ruq tk; rZv rpajiwlijcwv 

ecDs^i^a y^xyt.yLOLia. ArifxrUfhUf re tco t^$ Trcc^or/iuq iTrianOTrui, y.cct 
ra) TOTS T^5 'AlytTrra Wcip^Vf '^^f'^ ^5 t^? 'Apa.^ia? riya^Jva' 
u^ ccv [/.{la <77ry^>55 ccttcco-Yji; tov Qpiyevriv 'Trey^^c/isv Koivcuvrjo-ovlcc 7\oyu9 

'A§a/3i(zv. Conf. cap. xxxvi. p. 299. 1. 29. sqq. 

^^ Id. ibid. cap. Xvi. p. 275. 1. 21. Toaavrvi ^t ilo-r,y^o tZ 
'^piyivn tZv ^iiuv "hoyuv a7rr,)i^i^UfA.ivYt e^ilucriCy ug >c^ Tr,v E^fu'i^x 
yXuTlccv £>{//,a$£U'. — Kui Tivuq hipcc^y vccpu Tuq y.cclvjfjLU^BVfAivott; Ip- 
(AYiVticcq ivcc>^aT%<7ae,j T'/jy AavXs xj 2y|(/.|xap^» y.ct] Qbc^oIiuvoi;, Itpsvpuii* 
aj, a;i oT^ oSe» £x Tivuv ftv^uv, rov 7ra\a» Xav^uviicrug ^^6i/ov, 
ityi^viva-ctqj iU ?'w? Tr^oyiyotytv, i(p' av hu. Tr,v «5'^Xot»}I«, Ti)io<; up' 
iliv »x i\^u<;, uvTo TdTo i^.oi/ov iTrfcrj^jjfaTo, uq a^ct t'/jj* />(.?v s'vpoi iv 
Tvt TTPoq 'Ay.T'iu NiJiOTToXsi* rrjv at iv STBpcj ToV<y TOio/de. Cont. Cap. 

xviii.p. 278.1.13. 

^° Id. ibid. cap. XXV. p. 290. 1. 12. Iv ^e to; tt^-mtco tuv iTq to 
xaTflt Ma]S«rov 'E.vayyiKiov \J> Q.piyiv'fi<;~\ tcv iH.a'hria-^a.^iy.ov (^vT^utIuv 
xecvovaCf yi^va, Tsa-aapcc sloivat Ej;ayJiEA»a [Aot^vpeluij u)0£ m-uq y^u^uv* 
Slq sif 7rapa3o<ret (jlccBuv Trap; tc^v Tsa-cra^uv Et«iy£>/tfc')', u xxt /x.oya 
imxpiip^yjlci Iv ttj Ltio tqv ip^atlv \Y.\hr,a'ici. tv <£>iv' k. t. ?, 



( 214 ) 

their due and exclusive weight^' ; and has deduced 
their authority from the immemorial tradition of the 
Catholick Church^*; which his profound learning 
and local researches furnished him with ample means 
of investigating. 

If we noW take the works of Clement, Origen, 
and Tertullian, and compare them with our Scrip- 
tures, as preserved in the original Greek, and in the 
Latin translation, it is impossible to resist the con- 
viction, that the sacred writings must have retained 
their integrity, since the times of those primitive 
fathers. We find them collectively quoted by those 
early fathers, under their proper titles, and on all 
occasions where their authority could be adduced. 
Of Tertullian it has been observed, that he contains 
more numerous and extensive extracts from the New 
Testament, than all the writers of antiquity, for a 
long succession of ages, have adduced from the 
voluminous writings of Cicero ^' ; though his works 

** Orlg. Horn. i. in Luc. Tom. III. p. 932. d. Ovru nee) vvr 

ccTkTC ol Ukiixqi rpcc7r£t,'niici a Tuvla iK^ivaVy kWa, rnxx ocvruv l^iAi^otilo, 
Tayoi. ^\ xa« to * iiriyi^^rtacc})^ \zKrf^mce.y ''iyj.i KO^myo^iav tuv 

'^Ic/.'c'^aios yap «x iinx^ifYia-i* uXK gypa\J/£V h% (xyin Hv&vfjixros 
xtvapcevof o/LLoiais ^ Ma§)(05" k^ IwavvTjy, Trsipoi TrXrtaLov ^£ j^ 
h^yJas. Vid. supr. p. 205. n. ^♦. The testimony of Origen 
respecting the Epistles, which is too long for insertion in this 
place, is collected by Eusebius, Lib. VI. cap. xxv. p. 29L 

6^ Vid. supr. n. ^°. 

'^ Dr. Lardn. Cred. of Gosp. Hist. P. I, B. I. ch. xxvii. p. 
64- 1. " There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the 
N. T. in this one christian author, than of all the works of Ci- 



( 215 ) 
Uave formed a standard^ by which succeedhig wri- 
ters have endeavoured to model their stile. The 
writing's of Clement and Orii^en liave undergone a 
severer scrutiny than those of Tertullian; all the 
scripture quotations which are discoverable in such 
of their works as are extant, have been extracted 
from them, and have been disposed in their proper 
order ^'^. They contain ample and connected quo- 
tations from all the books of Scripture, which not 
only evince the general integrity of the sacred wri- 
tings, but demonstrate, by the most extraordinary 
coincidence with the vulgar Greek "^^ that the tex- 
ture of the phrase and purity of the language have 
remained uncorrupted for tiie vast period which 
has intervened, since the age of those primitive 
fatiiers. 

Ample and satisfactory as the testimony is, which 
is thus borne to the integrity of the sacred Scrip- 

cero, though of so uncommon excellence for thought and stile, 
in the writers of all characters for several ages/' 

^* Vicl. Nov. Test, Locc. ab Orig. et Clem. Alex. Allegatt. 
ap. Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. IL p. 229. sqq. 

^5 M. Griesbach has noted the deviations of the Vulgar Greek 
from the readings of Origen, in the lower margin of his Symbb. 
Critt. ut supr. p. 241. sqq. When we throw out of the list the 
inconstant readings of Origen, and the peculiar readings of 
Clement, of whom M. Griesbach declares, ibid. p. 235. " S. S. 
oracula baud raro memoriter excitat, et sensum magis quanj 
ipsa auctorum sacrorum verba repraesentat;" and when we re- 
member the insuperable difficulties with which the antients had 
to contend in quoting accurately, as not knowing the use of a 
Concordance, and not having a text divided into verses : the 
literal coincidence of those readings, and the Greek Vulgate, 
must be considered next to miraculous. 



( 216 ) 

tures^ it seems possible to connect it by a few steps 
with the age of the inspired writers. Origen was 
the disciple of Clement, and Clement the disciple of 
Pantaenus; and all of them wer^ the intimates of 
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem ^^ : but Pantaenus is 
expressly said to have been a disciple of those who 
were the immediate auditors of the Apostles ^^. 
Alexander represents Narcissus, wlio was likewise 
bishop of Jerusalem, as having- been an hundred and 
sixteen years old, when he acted as his suffragan in 
that see, at Jerusalem ^^i he of course must have en- 
joyed the same opportunities of conversing with the 
immediate disciples of the apostles, w^hich were pos- 
sessed by Pantaenus. Tertullian is referred to a 
period near that of the apostles, by St. Jerome, who 
drew his information from one who was informed 
by an acquaintance of St. Cyprian^ his disciple ^^ 

^s Vid. supr. p. 210. n. ". 

^^ Phot. Bibliothec. cod. cviii. T5to> roUw rov 'n^iyivriv, 

^iiyaai yiVBcrBcci KX>)[xi>]oi; t5 Xr^w/xo-Tew?, xul re xctra, t»v AXeI- 

>>iyHJ-i Ka) oiK^oairjv kuI t2 ^i^acrxaAgta ^ici^o^ov. Tlaivrcavov ^s rc^V 
Tc THS *A7ros"6>.bS' Iw^axoTwv dx^oxaoia^cci' « /xr,v akXa aoc'i rtvuv 

67 Vid. supr. p. 208. n. *^ 

'^^ S. Hier. Cat. Scripp. Eccless. in Tertul. Tom. I. p. 12(>. 
*• Vidz ego quendam Paulum Concordise, quod opidum Italis 
est, senem, qui &e B. Ci/priani jam grandis cctatis notariunif 
cum ipse admodum esset adolescens, Romce vidisse diceret, 
referreque sibi solitum, numquam Cyprianum absque Tertul- 
liani lectione unam diem priEterisse: ac sibi crebro dicer e ; 
* Da magistrum:' Tertulliaaum videlicet significant," Id. ib. 



( ^17 ) 

St. Ii'enaBUS mentions his having been acquainted 
with St. Polycarp^ who was placed in the see of 
Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist^; and g-ives an 
affecting description of the accounts which he heard 
that venerable old man deliver of the apostle, and 
of the impression which, while he was yet a boy, 
they had made upon his recollection ^°, With these 
facihties of arriving at the opinions of the apostoli- 
cal age, on a subject of such paramount importance 
as that of the sacred canon, it remains to be ob- 
served, that the apostolical tradition, as preserved 
by the succession of bishops throughout the Catho- 
lick Church, was at this period an object of curious 
investigation^'. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, ex- 

in Luc. p. 111. " Sed et Tertuilianus, viclnus eorum tempo- 
yum," &c. 

^ Vid. supr. p. 200. n. *?. 

'° S. Iren. Fragmm. p. 340. at ya^ U 'jrui^uv f/,a$>;<rfi?i crwavm 

xou roiq ^jaAffEtj a? iTronTTo rrpoi; to wA^-jo?* xcci 'c>3»' fjMct 'luxvvts 
cvvxvecT^fi^'nv uq u'KrjfyhT^.hB' xa* ttjc jwcra ruu Xoiiruv ruv eupotKoruf 
nrlt Kyp»oy* xoct aq ccm^vx^^vtvi. iHc Xoyyt; ocvTuVf v.ai irifi t« Kvpis 
riva, vjv a, 'TTOtp IksIvuv a,>tr,xon' au) Tri^i dwuiAiuv avr^, xa) <fftol rv^ 

7» Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Lib. VI. cap. xiil. p. 272. 1. 29. 

xa« £V to; "hQyiJi ^\ uvri Tu -nrspl re '-^acr^ic iy.^iaBijvai £o KXr/fjiYiil 
o[jiA>My£if ir^oq ruv erccifuv «j '^f^x^ 'ma.^cc ruv upy^a'ius/ <srp£cr^'j7Bf(uv 
uxvjKouq vocpxdocreiq, yp^^^ ^oT<; ^^iialuvra, irccfa^ivcci, Clement, in 

describing the sources from whence he drew his traditional 
knowledge, proves that it must have been catholick, and di- 
rectly received from the auditours of the Apoitles ; Id. Stroinat 



( 218 ) 

pressly appeals to it in the controversy respecting 
Easter; and on this subject of comparatively minor 
importance^ states the traditionary customs^ as de- 
rived from St. Poly carp and St. John, in the 
churches of Smyrna and Ephesus7\ Similar ap- 
peals are made to it, by St. Irenapus ^^ and Tertul- 
lian, on the rule of faith which had been delivered 

Lib. I. p. 322. TtiTUv [Av \<jrt rvii E^^ao^f o 'luvixo^' o ^\ Itt* t?5 
txEyaX-//^ 'E^Aao05* TV)? xoiAjj? cctb^o^ avrav Yvpiaq %v' o ol uit 
'Al7't;'7r1a* ctXAoi ^e Lya, rrtv AvocIoXyjV* y.at ravTV)q o y.iv Ti? tuv 
A<ravp'iW)/* o ^h Iv rr, TlaXonfU-n 'E/?pans aveKuBBf vtcItu ^l •mpiUv^c^jv, 
^vta.!J.Bi ^'upa, TTfWTOf rji*, uii'rrxva-a.[ji,vipf Iv AlyvTrlu! ^rifoccrctq T^iXr.BoTU, 

iv^iis ccno risTpa xat 'luKui^e xat lutxwH ra no.) HayAy ruv ayiup 
^A'noTo'Kcjv, TLOit^ TTa^x TT/xr^os ex^e^a/x^vob', oxiyoi ^l ol •n-al^uaiv 
ouoioi, riKOV ^ri auv ©so) y^ els vV^^j ^^ 'jrpoyovw.a, ImTva xon 
' AiroToXynoi xaraSy^crojLcsJ'o; srTri^jx<x.rcc. Conf. Euseb. Lib. V . Cap. 

xi. p. 223. 1. 3L sqq. cap. xxviii. 1. 16. sqq. 

'^ Polycrat. Epist. ad Vict. ap. Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xxiv. 

p. 244. 1. 13. m ^e y.ayoj o [xixpon^oq 'TTu.t/TUV v'^uv noAu^pary/f, 
xara TTocpcioQaiv rcuv cvfyiVuov fxa, ois ^ T^cx^rnxokH^noac 
ticrlv avTuv' STTTa (xh vio-uv ffvfyBvUi (xa iTria-ao'Troif iyu h oySoo^' 
nal TravTOTi Tij* yifxi^av vtyuyov ol ffvfyBVcTi /i*», otocv o T^uoq yj^vvs r-/it 
Ivuviv, iyu) iiv uh\(po]f l|^JtoyTa Vivre £T»j s^uv Iv xvpia/f xa» cvix^i' 
^Xr.Y.ux; To~? ot-iro rrj? olKS^ivYtq a^£?i(poK, xat vocaav ocyiav T^cc(pr,9 
^nKnTiV^ui^y » TTTv^Ofxah Iw* tok xccrcnrXricr^oixiyoiz, 

73 S. Iren, adv. Haer. Lib. TIL cap. iii. p. 177. uX>J kJ ^ h 
'EsSeVw hiro nayXa ^v TeS'£/iAEXtw/>tBi'>j, 'laa-vva h 9rapa^£i»a«'T0? avro'i'i 
f*'X?* TiDv TpaVai/tf x^^^^^i iJ^ocprvs aXoo^ogs" Efi rriS 'Atto^oXcov 
irupocloascijf. Of the means which St. Irenaeus possessed of 
investigating the primitive traditions, and of the curiosity which 
he exercised on this subject, he has thus spoken; S. Iren. adv. 
Haer. Lib. IV. cap, xxvii. p. 263. " Quemadmodum audivi a 
quodam Presbytero, qui audierat ah his qui Ajoostolos viderantf 
«t ab his qui didicerant," &c. 



( 219 ) 

to the Church by its original founders, and preserved 
by their successours 7+. The former states, that the 
apostoHcal tradition was preserved in every church 
throug-hout the world '^; the latter appeals to the 
apostolical writings as preserved in the particular 
churches, where they were deposited by their in- 
spired authours ^^. 

^* Tertul. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. v. p. 406. ** In summa, 
si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab 
initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constahit id esse ah 
Apostolis tradittivif quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fiierit 
sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corlnthii hauserint ; 
ad quam regulam Galatse sint recorrecti ; quid legant Pliilip- 
penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de 
proximo sonent, quibus Evangelium et Petrus et Paulus san- 
guine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Haberaus et Joannis 
alumnas Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocal)^psim ejus Marcion res- 
puit, ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joan- 
nem, stabit auctorem, sic et cceierarum generositas recotrnoscitun 
Dico itaque apud illas, nee solas jam Apostolicas, sed apud 
universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confcederantur, id 
Evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suce stare quod cum maxime 
tuemur : Marcionis vero plerisque nee notum, nullis autem no- 
tum ut non eo damnatum." 

^5 S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. IIL cap. iii. p. 175. " Traditio- 
nem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manijestatam, in onmi 
Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre: et 
habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi 
in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nosj*' &c. Id. ep. 

ad Florin, p. 339. Tccvtoc t« ^oyixacra, cccrv[A(p6Jvci er* T»j lK>c?iy,a-i» 
cviJL^oiTna-xvrii;, k Tra^s^uy.av n. r. I. 

'^ Vid. supr. p. 115. n. '\ p. 218. n. ''\ The meaning as- 
cribed to authenticce liierce, in the former quotation, has been 
opposed by Dr. Lardner, Cred. of Gosp. Hist. P. I. B. I. qXx, 



( 220 ) 

As the darly period in which those apostolical fa* 
thers flourished is thus easily connected with the age 

xxvli. Vol. II. p. 636. He supports his opinion on the autho- 
rity of Cicero, and of Tertullian, the former of whom uses the 
adverb «u3cvT(x<i!?, and the latter the adjective authenticus, in 
designating the original of a work, as distinguished merel}'' from 
a translation. And he contends, that the very originals cannot 
be meant by the phrase aidhenticcs Uteres ; as it is inconceivable 
the Epistle to the Ilomans could have been read at Rome, as 
written in Greek; or that the autographs of the different Epis- 
tles of the inspired writers could be found at more places than 
one; whereas Tertullian refers to different places. But the 
former instances are wholly irrelevant. The case of an epistle 
which has been transcribed, and of a work which has been 
translatedy arc essentially different ; and the latter is wholly be- 
side the point in dispute between Tertullian and Marcion. 
They equally reasoned from the original Greek; of course with- 
out any regard to a translation. What seems decisive of the 
point is, that had merely authentick copies been required to de- 
cide the matter in debate, it was useless to apply to the places 
where the originals had been certainly deposited ; as an autlien' 
iicJc tra?iscript of the Epistle to the Galatians, to speak but of 
a single instance, might be as easily obtained at Carthage^ 
where the question was debated, as at Rome, Corinth, or 
Ephesus. And when Dr. Lardner objects, that the Epistle to 
the Romans was not read in the original Greek, at Rome, it 
seems to have escaped his observation, that it was written and 
addressed in this language to that Church, by the Apostle ; 
doubtless with the view of being read in the congregation. I 
trust also, it would require more ingenuity than the objectour 
possessed, to prove, that because it was read from a translation, 
which I am forward to admit, it was not read also in the ori- 
ginal. Certainly the practice of the Primitive Church as fully 
warrants me in this conjecture, as the objectour in the con- 
trary : see 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 28. The reasoning of Dr. Lardner 
is therefore as unfortunate, as the instances which he has ad- 
duced impertinent. The reasons which support a different 



( 221 ) 
of the apostles; it may be no less easily connected 
with that in which the Latin Vulgate was made, and 
the Alexandrine manuscript written; the joint tes- 
timony of which contains a sufficient evidence of 
the integrity of the canonical scriptures from the 
ktter period down to the present day. 

St. Jerome, who formed the Latin Version, drew 
his information respecting Tertullian from one who 
had conversed with a notary of St. Cyprian ^7. St. 
Athanasius, who lived when the Alexandrine manu- 
script was written, was present in the Council of 
Nice^^ and the acquaintance of St. Epipha- 
nius, the friend of St. Jerome ^9. But the great 

tense to the passage before us, are possessed of different weight. 
That authenticce litercB was considered, in Tertullian's age and 
country, synonymous with ipsa ejnstola, eadeyn episiola, St. Cy- 
prian places beyond controversion: vid. supr. p. 115. n. ' : 
and of all suppositions it is only probable, that the originals of 
the epistles of St. Paul, which iVIarcion had corrupted, in his 
transcripts, had not been destroyed in the age of a person, who, 
like Tertullian, lived near the Apostles' times; vid. supr. p. 
217. n. ^^ A comparison with any 07ie of those Epistles, as 
preserved at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, would have demon- 
strated the corruption of Marcion's Apostolicum: this is the 
whole which is intimated by Tertullian, and less than this ren. 
^ers his argument nugatory. 

" Vid. supr. p. 216.n. ^^ 

?^ Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 19. 1. 50. 

TtfTOi; ^e [ror? '/^EJay^? atpsVcW?] yswaicoq uvr-rtyuvl^no ABavxa-to',^ 

«. T. a. Cont: Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. L cap. xvii. p. 26. 
1.7. 

^^ S. Hier. adv. Ruffin. Lib. III. cap. vii. Tom. XL p. 257. 
^ Malui per Maleas et Cycladas Ci/prum pcrgere, iihi swscepius 



( 223 ) 

Atlianasiiis must have conversed with many who 
had known the disciples of Origen. Demetrius^ 
who was contemporary with the latter, governed the 
church of Alexandria forty-three years; and his 
siiccessours^ Heraclas and Dionysius^ who occupied 
the same see for thirty-three years subsequently to 
his times^ were the disciples of Origen ^°. But 
Dionysius was summoned to the Synods held at 
Antiochj which was convened against Paul of Samo- 
sata^'; and Lucianus, the martyr^ who revised the 
Byzantine text^ was contemporary with Paul^ who 
was deposed by the Synod of Antioch ^\ As he 

a veneralili EpiscopQ Epiphanio, cujus tu testimonio gloriaris, 
veni Antiochiam." St. Epiphanius himself has placed out of 
dispute that he was personally acquainted with St. Athanasius. 
I shall subjoin the anecdote which he relates ; as drawn from 
the life, it paints, with the utmost truth of nature, the manners 
of that extraordinary man, who was an ornament to the sacred 
function. S. Epiphan. Haer. lxxii. p. 837. b. hfioiA-nv ^l avTo? 
lyai X9°^^ ''^"'* '^^'' (*^>t.ix,fiTviv TlocjTccv ' A^ot.vot,(7i<iv wep* rara t$ 
Ma()>iE^^y, TTw? av £';>/ot -zzrEpi ayrS. o o\ ers l^cfUTriKoyixTeilof 
ars -TjraXiv Tipos avrbv oLiisy^ws 'niii'/^'/i, fxorov ^e ^loi rs Trqoau/Tns 
fJiSi^idoixs v7li(^Yi\s^ ^o^-nf'ioe,<; p,vj ^*.uy.^av ctvrov eiv«», xa* ug aTTO- 
7\0'yiriaa.(ji,svov £i%E. 

«^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xv. p. 275. 1. 12. 

f^q y.ccryiX'O"'"^' ^^* ^^^^* ^^P- x^^^' P^ ^^'^' ^' 21* "^^^ ^^ '^^'' 
etvTo^i Ka,Tr,^^aiu}q T^» ^iccr^i^nn ^»a^E%£Tai Aiovva-io^, iU ««* aro? ruv 

^* Euseb. ib. Lib. VIL cap. xxvii. p. 357. I. 12. o /*£v kut 

A^£|av^pE^«v AtonJcrio? "Trctpax^JjStJf ^5 ocv im nrnv cvvoSov [In AvJi- 

«* Alex. Alexp.ndr, Epist. ap. Theod. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 



( 223 ) 

survived this period, until the persecution of Maxi- 
min, and was not martyred until within thirteen 
years of the Council of Nice, he must have been a 
contemporary of St. Athanasius, and would have 
been doubtless present in that Synod, had he not 
been prematurely cut off among- the martyrs of 
Palestine. By the intervention of Dionysius and 
Lucianus, the tradition is thus connected from the 
times of Origen to those of St. Athanasius, St. Epi- 
phanius, and St. Jerome. 

The testimony of St. Athanasius, who stands at 
the end of this succession, is adequate to decide all 
that it is my object to establish ^K He has given a 
list of the canonical and apocryphal books, in his 
Festal Epistle ^^ which forms a sufficient evidence 

iv. p. 15. »>t uyvo^^leq on v) hocyxo^ iiravocTciacx, rri iy.y.T^viciX'ri-'tn 

'Avlioy^Eiciv UavXa t5 'LxfAoaccliuq a-vnoou) y.al x/icrsi Tw» ccrrailct^e 
i'JTiffx.d'Kuv u'Tray.rifvy.BBvioi T'^; iKHXriaicc^i' ov ^m,h^cx.u,tvo(; AiiKiccyoi; 
icTcoa-vvixyuyoq iyi,nvt Tpi&Jy itc iaKO'rruv <7io>.v{\tTq ^^o»s?. 

«3 Vid. supr. p. 131. n. ^^ Conf. S. Athan. de Incarn. Verb, 
Tom. I. p. 96. b. 

^+ St. Athan. Epist. Fest. Tom. I. P. ii. p. 962. c. t^ f, r^^ 

EYAFFEAIA rsaacc^^a* notice Motl^xTov, y.a]cc Moc^ytov, xctlac Aey.ccv^ 
y.o[\oi '[uavvr.v. slroc y^tioi mvTa, nPAHEIS THN 'AnOSTOAr2N, y.acl 
'EniSTOAAl KA0OAIKAI xa?v8f/Ej'a» tuv * Airoroy^av zttIcc' iiTuq f^lv^ 
'lotKu^a Uy TLer^H ^£ iS, tlra Icotivva y, xx) yJJx rccvTx; lii^a. oi, 
TT^k TtfTOK riATAOT 'Awos-oX» sla-iv 'Eni£TOAAI h>ialt<rcr«pcq, rv 
■Ta|£t ypccipoixivai trrw?' ir^arin TTfoq PtVjW.ajtfs* tiro. 'rr^o<; Kop»»vi8? ovq* 
i^ fAslci ruvru v^oi TuT^ciTsc^* xj i|>j$ v^oi 'Exeats?* tlra, <n-^oq 
^iXkTTTr-niTiaq, )^ wpo? Ko^«!Tc^£^?, >^ (m/]» rxvrx Vflq ©Ecrua^ovtxsr? 
^1^0* xj 7) TT^oq 'E(3f«ka5* »c^ tvi^vq Wfoj Tt/xo.&£0>r ^vo' Trplq ol Tlrof 



( 224 ) 

©f the integrity of the vulgar edition ; in proving 
the same books to be now in use^ which were re- 
ceived at the time of the Nicene Council. What 
adds still greater weight to his authority^ is the ex- 
plicit appeal which he makes to the tradition of the 
Churchy while employed in enumerating the Cano- 
nical Scriptures ^\ As he was present in the Coun- 
cil of Nice, where the Bishops of the Catholick 
Church were assembled together, and as he visited 
the churches of Greece ^^ Syria ^^, Gaul^^, and 
Italy ^9^ and governed that of Alexandria, he not 
only possessed the means of tracing the tradition to 
its source, but of ascertaining how far it was catho- 
lick. The different editions which are incorporated 
in the Alexandrine manuscript^'', contain a sufficient 

rocvTce, 'rr'nyoLi t5 a-aj%^iii x. t. I. Conf. Synops. Script. Tom. II. 
p. 177. d. sqq. 

^^ Id. in Epist, Fest. p. 961. e. 7rcx,faKx>,:j 'tvex^j-B'^if si irs^t 

y^o(,(puy diotTE T^» ociocy'/.xv v.cti to xP'fiai[A.ov Tijf £xx.^^o"t«?. yiiKhui ^% 
inTuy /xmj/ASVeVSJi', x^y:crofji.on — ru tirra tS E^a/yeAtra Aay.ci, ^iyup 
t^ CLvToq' ETTnaK'TTt^ Tutq ETTEp^sl^jCTaJ' cctctloliao-^oci euvlo7^ ret 
yayofAivok A'j:QKfv(pa, k^ sTTifxiiat tuvtcc ryj ^loiivUfa r^a(pip, -re^i 
vis £-rX7}§o(fccy;3'i^/xsv, xol^us irapi^osciv toXs Tarqxaiv ct utt' 
ei^X^^f a^TOTrla* x^ v'^ifira.^ yiyciAivoi tS ?^6yii* i^o^e xa-ixoi, 
grfolpawEvIt wetfu yv7ia\u» u^iX<pujv, y.xl (/.x^q-vti avcu^Ev, i^r^q 
jxSfVSat ra. xavovi^o^eva j^ 9r<z§a5o3'6vr«, zsi^iv^iyroc, t£ S-eTa 

«^ Patrr. Benedd. Vit. S. Athan. p. viii. § 2. d. conf. S, 
A than. Tom. I. p. 128. 

^^ lid. ib. p. xxi. f. vid. supr. p. 132. n. '\ 

*^ Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxviii. p. 86. 1. 4. 

*» Vid. supr. p. 132. n.5^ 
. ^ Griesb. Sjmbb, Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. n. *. « Rari erant— 



( 225 ) 

proof that even the verbal niceties of the text did not 
wholly escape his attention. Having intended his 
revisal should become the Received Text^ he em- 
bodied the three editions^ which existed in his age, 
into one : he thus took the most effectual means of 
introducing uniformity into the Churchy on a sub- 
ject^ in which a difference of opinion must have been 
productive of greater ills^ than could arise from 
merely verbal inaccuracies, in the authorised Scrip- 
tures. Regarded with these limitations, this cele- 
brated manuscript may be considered a full exposi- 
tion of St. Athanasius's testimony to the integrity of 
the Sacred Text. 

To the testimony of St. Athanasius, as fully set 
forth in the Alexandrine manuscript, we may now 
add that of St. Jerome, as delivered in the Latin 
Vulgate ; in order to confirm the evidence of the 
Eastern Church by that of the Western. Not to 
insist on the explicit testimony which he has borne 
to the different books of the Canonical Scriptures'", 

Codices qui universum Novum Testamentum complecterentur ; 
plerique partem ejus tantum continebant; nempe alii Eva?i^ 
gelitty alii Epistolas Pauli, alii denique Actus Apostolorum cum 
Catholicis Epistolis. Hinc accidit, ut Codex Aiexandrinus non 
in omnibus libris eandem textus recensionem sequeretur. In 

Evangeliis exhibet recensionem Cojistantinopolitanam ; 

in Epistolis Paulinis repraesentat Alexandrinam recensionem 
■ ; in Actis denique et Epistolis Catholkis textum sequi- 

tur, passim ad Occid^talem recensionem conforma- 

tam.»* 

^' S. Hier, ad Paulin. Ep. cm. cap. vii. Tom. II. p. 340* 
** Tangam et Novum breviter Testamentum. Matthacus, Mar- 
cus, Lucas, et JoaDJies •- — . Paulu^ Apostolus ad septem 



( 226 ) 

his Vulgate contains a sufficient voucher for the tes- 
timony borne by the Latin Church to the general 
integrity of the Sacred Canon. St. Jerome's alte- 
rations extended to little more than verbal correc- 
tions 9^; he supplied some passages, and he ex- 
punged others^ in the received text of his age : but 
he translated no new book, he removed no old one, 
from the authorised version. From the New Vul- 
gate^ of course^, we may ascertain the state of the 
Old ; and thence collect the testimony of the Latin 
Church from the earliest period. As St. Jerome's 
version, however^, agrees with the list of St. Atha- 
nasiuSj in possessing the same authorised books, the 
testimony of both forms a sufficient evidence of the 
integrity of the Greek Vulgate ; which contains the 
same Scriptures which those early fathers agree in 
pronouncing Canonical. 

As the testimony of the Alexandrine manuscript 
and the Latin Vulgate, is generally corroborated by 
that of the great body of manuscripts, containing the 
original Greek, as well as the Oriental and Western 
translations, their united evidence contains an irre- 

scribit ecclesias (octava enim ad Hebraeos a plerisque extra 
numerum ponitur) Timotheum instruit, ac Titum: Philemonem 
pro fugitive famulo deprecatur. — Actus Apostolorum nudam 
quidem sonare videntur historiam, et nascentis Ecclesiae infan- 
tiam texere : sed, si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse 
medicum, cujus laus est in Evangelio ; animadvertemus^ pariter 
omnia verba illius, animse languentis esse medicinam. Jaco- 
bus, Petrus, Joannes, et Judas, AjJoStoli, septem Epistolas 

cdiderunt. Apocalypsis Joamiis tot habet sacramenta, q^uot 

verba." 

^* Vid. supr. p. 1G2. n. *"- 



( 227 ) 

fragableproof of the general integrity of the Sacred 
Canon. The certainty of this conclusion may be 
now summarily evinced, from a recapitulation of the 
foregoing deductions. 

From the constant intercourse which subsisted 
between the different branches of the Catholick 
Church, the wide and rapid circulation of the Scrip- 
tures must be inferred by necessary consequence 5^ 
Prom their universal dispersion, must be inferred 
their freedom from general corruptions^. Verbal 
errours might have arisen in the text, and have heen 
multipHed by the negligence of successive transcri- 
bers : and the destruction of the sacred books in par- 
ticular regions might have afforded opportunity to 
particular revisers, to publish editions of the text with 
fancied improvements. But, from the different in- 
terests which divided the Church, these alterations 
must have been confined to unimportant points 9^; 
and, from the general dispersion of the Scriptures^ 
must have been limited to particular districts, or 
have continued but for an inconsiderable period s^ 
The state and history of the text furnishes numer- 
ous confirmations of these several positions. The 
testimony and quotations of the primitive fathers 
who lived at the time of the Paschal controversy, 
prove, that the Scriptures, which were then gene- 
rally used in the Church, were those which were 



^^ Vid. supr. pp. 192—201. 
^* Vid. supr. pp. 201—205. 
^' Vid. supr. pp. 202—204. 
^ Vid. supr. pp. 120. 130—136. 



q2 



( 228 ) 

published by their inspired authours^"^; and as far 
as the testimony of those early witnesses extends, 
that they are the same which are still in use in our 
churches 9^ The testimony of those primitive fa- 
thers is connected with that of St. Athanasius and 
St. Jerome, by a very few links, which prove, that 
the tradition, which was preserved in the times of 
the former, could not have been interrupted in the 
times of the latter ^9. Their evidence is, however, 
as clearly as it is plenarily set forth in the Alexan- 
drine manuscript, and the Latin Vulgate, -sdiich, as 
delivering' the same testimony at different times, and 
under different circumstances *°°, furnish, by their 
coincidence, an unanswerable proof of the integrity 
of the Canonical Scriptures. 

But the same positions admit of a different esta- 
blishment, from some antecedent observations. The 
Alexandrine manuscript contains an evidence of the 
existence of three classes of text as early as the year 
three hundred and sixty-seven *'^' ; and consequently 
a proof of the permanence of the text of Byzantium 
from that time to the present '°\ The existence of 
this peculiar text for fourteen centuries involves no 
inconsiderable proof of its permanence since the 
times of the Apostles'''^. This presumption, which 

9^ Vid. supr. pp. 207—211. 
'3 Vid. supr. pp. 210. 2H-. 
»9 Vid. supr. pp. 221—223. 
'°^ Comp. p. 15. n. "^ p. 131. n. ^^. 



'-6 

'°' Vid. supr. pp. 121, 122. 
^^ Vid. supr. pp. 114. 126. 
"^^ Vid. supr. pp. 114, 115, 



( 229 ) 

is so strongly corroborated by the multiplicity of the 
copies of this edition, and by their extraordinary 
coincidence with each other '"'^ is finally confirmed 
by the testimony of the primitive Latin version; 
which, as obviously made in the earliest age, fur- 
nishes, by its coincidence with the Greek Vulgate, 
a demonstrative proof of the permanence of the Re- 
ceived Text or vulgar edition "^ 

In fine, the coincidence of the Greek and Latin Vul- 
gate, which contain the positive testimony of the Eas- 
tern and Western Church, constitutes a sufficient evi- 
dence of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. 
They prove, by their unity of consent, that the Sa- 
cred Canon is complete ; without any deficiency or 
superabundance of books; and without any diminu- 
tion or increase of their parts or members. Their 
joint testimony consequently furnishes an adequate 
test by which we may, in most cases, correct their 
variations from themselves, and rectify the imper- 
fections of other texts and editions. Hence, in the 
first instance, they sufficiently establish the authority 
of those canonical books, which have been question- 
ed by private persons, or by particular Churches ^"^^ 
In the next place, their conspiring testimony esta- 
blishes the authority of particular passages, which 
have oeen omitted in particular versions, or can- 
celled in particular edition'-; '^'^ The private testis 

'°* Vid. supr. p. 118. 

'°^ Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 111-. 

'°^ Vid. infr. p. 230. n. '°\ p. 237. n. ''\ 

Mark xvi. 9—20. Job. vii. 63.^viii. 11. vid. supr. pp. 



I07 

Sj— 38 



( 230 ) 

inony of individuals, the bye testimony of national 
churches, to which the evidence of fathers and ver- 
sions, as well as of particular manuscripts, is neces* 
sarily reducible, can have no weight against the 
conspiring- testimony of the two great Churches in 
the Eastern and Western world, which were the de- 
positaries of the apostolical writings. We may very 
easily account for the suppression of particular pas- 
sages, or even books, in a limited number of copies ; 
but their occurrence in the great body of manu- 
scripts, which properly contain the testimony of the 
Church, is not to be accounted for, otherwise than 
by admitting them to have possessed that authority 
from the first, which procured them a place among 
the Canonical Scriptures. 

A closer examination of this point will, however, 
place the integrity of the text beyond all reasonable 
ground of controversion. Of the different books 
which are numbered among the Canonical Scrip- 
tures, the Apocalypse, and Epistle to the Hebrews, 
have excited the most serious opposition *®^. Of the 
various passages which constitute those books, Mark 
xvi. 9 — 20. Johnviii. 1 — 11'°^ have been exposed 

'°« Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxv. p. 119. I. 4. 

£$y)V aS'sraffiV. tre^oi ^s tyn^lnBa-i roTq CjU,oXoy»/x£yoi?. Id. ibid. 
Lib. VI. cap. xx. p. 285. 1. 6. ruv t5 le^S 'ATroro^a hzur^iuv ^ovuv 
iTtiToXu))) [6 Ta,'io<;~\ fjivviixonvsi, rriv 'TTqhs 'K^poiin^ fJ^Vi auva,qiJ[j,Yiaxs 
rous "komcus' ittbI y.cn t\% hv^o irccfo, 'Pu}[jt,c(.1av Ttcrtv, « voixi^STcci t5 
•ATTos-oXb ruy^oivsiv. Conf. Lib. VII. cap. xxv. p. 352, 1. 4. 
sqq. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 90. 1. 2. 

»°5 Vid, S. Hier. utsupr. p. 35. n. ^J. p. 37. n. ^^. 



( ^31 ) 
to the most formidable objections. If, however, the 
canonical authority of the sacred volume be ground- 
lessly questioned in these respects, we may a for- 
tiori conclude, that it is not to be shaken by any 
objections. 

In vindication of the Apocalypse and Epistle to 
the Hebrews, it must be observed, that the objec- 
tions urg"ed against them are merely confined to a 
doubt respecting the name of the inspired persons 
by whom they were written. The former was con- 
ceived to have proceeded from John the Elder, 
7 whose tomb was shewn at Ephesus, together with 
that of St. John the Evangelist ''°; the latter was 
conceived to have proceeded from St. Luke, St 
Clement, or St. Barnabas"*, the companions of St. 

*'° Euseb. ibid. cap. xxxix. p. 136. 1. 15. tv^a xa* li^iTricrus, 

a|to» l\<; Kcaocfih^^vli ccvru [ra? Uair'^cc] to 'luuvva Ivo^cc* ut 
rov /w-ev 7r§ore^ov Uh^u t^ la-za^u t^ MolSaiw t^ Tor? P^otTTOiq 
*A<7roro^cK a-jyy.oi\a7\iyn, C(ji(paif ^nXwv rov 'EvJ.fysXi'i'nv' Tov S' 

STSPOV 'IwaVVTOV, ^IdTci^iCCq TOV T^oyov, Ix/pOl?, WOtga TOV TUV A'TTOfd'hu* 

^Pi^uov, Kctlccltia-a-ei, WfOTa|a$ uvtS tov 'Apifiwva* aoi(puis rs ocurov 
Tlpsa^vrspov ovopca^et. w? x^ ^»a t^tuv uTrohlnvva-^on rnv trofiat 
wXijSvj, Tuv ^vo Kocra, rviv 'Aaixv oi^mv/iu x£;)^p^cr$a» il^nMruv, 

^UO TF IV 'E(p£Vw 7£V£(T^ai l^Tfiy^OLT O.' kJ SXaTEfOV 'IwaHS £Tt »t?» 

^£yEc^^a^• oT$ Xj' kva-yv-odov ■7rpocr£;^£tv tov vtfv. zWos yup rov ^Evrs^ov, 
tl^n TK sfieAoi TOV TTf^TOv, TViv lit ov6[xocToq p^oyJvv}V 'Iwayv« 
A'noytdXv^^iv lojoocxivai. Vid. Lib. VII. cap. xxv. p. 353. 1. 44-. 
sqq. Conf. S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Joan. Tom. I. 

p. 121. 

"* S. Hier- Cat. Scriptt. EccL in Paul. Tom. I. p. 120. 
«* Epistola autem quae fertur ad HebrcEos, non ejus crecUtiir prop- 
ter styli sermonisque dissonantiam ; sed vel Barnahcc ^w^i^ Ter- 
tullianum; vel Luc^ Evangelistce, juxta quosdam ; vel Cle- 
mentis, Romana^ poitea Ecclesiae Episcopi, quern aiunt senten- 



( 232 ) 

Paul the Apostle"*. The particular objections 
urg'ed against those books^ from the internal evi- 
dence, I shall consider hereafter; the following con- 
siderations appear to me to remove all doubt of 
their authority^ as constituting a part of the sacred 
Scripture. 

In the first place it is not disputed^ by the most 
strenuous oppugners of those books^ that they con- 
stituted a part of the Canon ^'^ Admitting thus 
much, which, by the way, is all that is worth con- 
testing, the point in dispute may be brought to a 
speedy determination. It has been urged in objec- 
tion to those books, that the one introduces the name 
of St. John "^ the other omits the name of St. 

iias Pauli proprio ordlnasse, et ornasse sermone.'^ Conf. Tert. 
Lib. de Pudicit. c. xx. p. 617. Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist. 
Eccl. Lib. Lib. VL cap. xiv. p. 273. 1. 8. sqq. Con£ Lib. IIL 
cap. xxxviii. p. 134-. 1. 18. sqq. 

"- Comp. Act. xiii. 2. &c. 2 Tim. iv. 1. Phil. iv. 3. Conf. 
Euseb. ibid. cap. iv. p. 91. 1. 17. p. 92. 1. 6. 

"2 Dionys. Alexandr. ap Euseb. ibid. Lib. VII. cap. xxv. 
p. 352. 1. 23. ly^ ^l d'^erriaaL (xsv «k av ToXfJirKJonixi to /3«/3X/ov* 
iro^^uv ocvTo ^icc (TTTB^yiq lyjivruv ahX(puv» Id. ibid. p. 353. 1. 3. 
xaXsr<7^ai fjuv iiv avrov 'lua,vvYtv, >o eivai rrtv r§Ji(p^v l/vcivvis 
rscvTriv HK civre^uj. ayia f^lv ya.^ Bhaci rivos o^ S"£0^vEi/$-8 avvcx.ivai, 
(^y.ca fjLt^* £T£^a) on ^\v iv 'luocvvvig Eriv o tocvtoc. y^oc^uv \_xayca 
^luotvvvtq ^Xiircov Jtj octtHuv ravra.~\ avru T^tyom TTirevTiov* •n'oToq ^e 
vToq ahy^ov. Euseb. ib. Lib. III. cap. xxxviii. p. 134, 1. 14. 

ccc(^'iTCc\oL 5rapir'5<rii/ o-n [xrt teov i/Trap^n to (Tv[yfa,^^iex>' oBev s'lKOTCUS 
I'^o^EV, ecvTo TCK >^oi7roTq lfyLura7\£y(Privoa ypccfj^ixaci t« 'Att- 
•5:0X8, 

"4 Dionys. ibid. p. 3,53. 1. 5. Ov /*^v ^a^»ws kv cryy^o»^y;p t^top 



( 2SS ) 

Paiil"^ contrary to the practice of those Apostles, 
in their genuine writings. This distinction seems 
decisive of the question, and directly identifies the 
true authours of the Apocalypse and the Epistle. 
The introduction of the name of the inspired writer 
implies an authoritative declaration of the aposto- 
lical function : such a designation is, of course, as 
properly abandoned by both Apostles in dictating- 
epistles to the whole church, or to particular congre- 
gations not in their jurisdiction: as it was properly 
assumed by them, in addressing those churches over 
which they assumed an immediate authority. St. 
John, in his Catholick Epistle, and St. Paul, in his 
Epistle to the Hebrews, declines using the title; for 
this obvious cause, that the one was no universal 
Bishop, the other not an Apostle of the Hebrews, 
but of the Gentiles "^ But in addressing the parti- 

ivvai TOD 'A7^oVo^o^ rly viov Zi^e^ccie' rov uosT^Cpov 'lotKuBa' a to 

lE.vufyiXiov TO y.cc\a, 'luamv lmyiy^eciJ.[xsvoVf )<^ n imroXn ri xaSoXtx^. 

5 iA.iv ya^ I,vufyeXirr,i, h^izfXH To ovo/jloc avrS 'Traasfyqa.ipEi' 

«^£ xvi^vaaei socvrov, srs ^ix rn EuxfyEKiH, «t£ ^i^ Try? 'Ett- 

w^oTair<7£t. 

"5 Vid. supr. p. 231. n. '". Conf. infr, n. ^'^, 

^'6 Clement, of Alexandria, has put this argument more 

forcibly ; Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. ibid. Lib. VL cap. xiv. p. 273. 

1. 19. \tti\ Ki^^ior, aTToro^o? ^y t« namj^^aTo^e^, aTr^raAj, it^bi; 
'E^paiy?- ^.a/x6T^.oV>5T«, 5 Da^Aoc, ig ^v z\s t^ "E^vt} aTTss-^X/^EVor, 

«X Ep/§^(Pci Sa^TOV 'E^^OCICOV AtTOS-oXoV ^;^ TH 7^. TTPO,' Ti. KtJ^ior 

'Tiurtv, ^la. TH TO Ik ve^mcria^ j^ roTq 'E^^ocioi: lOTr^AAa.!/, 'eS*S* 

xy^fvaa, l,ry. ^ Airoro^ov. S. HIer. Comm. in GaJ. cap. i. Tom. 
VI. p. 120. f. <' Et in Epistola ad Hebrasos, propterea Paidum 
sohta consuetudinc, nee no7ne?i mum, nee Apostoli vocabukm 
pra^j)osinsse, quia de Chrisio trat dicturus : " Habentes ergo 



( 234 ) 

cular churches of Rome and Corinth, or the seven 
churches of Asia, both St. John and St. Paul, in in- 
troducing their names, assert their apostolical autho- 
rity. With respect to the Apocalypse, of course 
the controversy must be now at an end; for it is as 
certain, that John the Elder possessed no authority 
over the seven churches, as that those churches were 
governed by St. John the Evangelist, until the reign 
of the Emperour Trajan *'^ And with respect to 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, it may be as briefly 
decided. Though St. Paul has declined introduc- 
ing his name into this Epistle, he has asserted that 
authority over Timothy, in deputing him on a mis- 
sion "^, which is irreconcilable with the notion of its 
having proceeded from any person of inferiour au- 
thority ; or is indeed clearly demonstrative of the 
fact, that it was written by the great Apostle. 

As these considerations, deducible from the in- 
ternal evidence, seem to annihilate the force of the 
objections raised to those canonical books ; the ex- 
ternal testimony of two witnesses, who are above all 
exception, fully confirms the authority which they 
derive from the ecclesiastick tradition. St. Irenaeus, 
who was but one remove, in the line of succession, 
from St. John, having heard his disciple St. Poly- 

Principem, Sacerdotem et Apostolum confessionis nostrae Je- 
sum :" nee fuisse congruura, ut ubi Christus Apostolus di- 
cendus erat, ibi etiam Paulus Apostolus poneretur." 

"^ Vid. supr. p, 112. nn. ^et^ 

■*^ Euthal. Argum. in Ep. ad Hebrr. p. 671. xaj Ix tS T.iynv, 



( 235 ) 

carp *'^ expressly ascribes tlie Revelation to tlie 
Evangelist ''° ; and speaks of the apocalyptick vi- 
sion as having been seen in his own age, towards 
the end of the reign of Domitian "\ And a con- 
temporary of St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, 
whose authority Eusebius represents as decisive '", 
relates that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written 
by St. Panl in his vernacular tongue, but translated 
into Greek by Luke the Evangelist *'^ To the tes- 
timony which St. Irenaeus bears to the work of St. 
John, we may add that of Justin Martyr '"^ Ter- 
tullian*'^ Melito "^ Theophilus ^'^ Apollonius'"', 
and Clemens Alexandrinus »^9^ who flourished in the 



"9 Vid. supr. p. 200. n. *3. p. 217. n. '"'. 

'*° Vid. supr. p. 170. n. '''. conf. p. 112. n. ^ 

'" Vid. Euseb. supr. p. 112. n. ^ 

"^ Id. ibid. 

"3 Vid. supr. p. 211. n. 55. 

'^* Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 308. ^a/ %ijlTv utl^ t*? * 
2yo/!-ta Icoxv'jns, eU rajv 'Attos-oXwv tS Xp{S"»;> £V 'A'roxaXi/4'« 
ysvo/AEvn a^7a>, ;)(;;iAj« £T» Tcroiyia-civ h Ispsaa^r)/;^, ra? t« »;fc£Jefw Xg»r^ 
^i^ivaotilstt; z^poB(pYircvaB. 

*^5 Vid. supr. p. 219. n. *^*. 

**^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. p. 189. 1. 1. «; T^Cyot 

T« tsxift t5 ^»ai5oAtf, ^ Tr;f 'A7ro)taXz;4/ec<;y 'Iwavva. 

"^ Id. ibid. cap. xxiv. p. 187. K 27. xj aAAo \_(7v\'y^iiA.ixa, t5 
0eo(p^^a (pHpElai] tir^o? T^*- «rp£atv 'E^fA-oysvaq rviv iTny^ccfviv b^ov, sv a 

"8 Id. ibid. Lib. V. cap. xviii. p. 236. 1. 1 1. x/p/p /!«» ^l [5 

^i ^vvausi BsM ZJpoS OCUTH 'lojdvMH SV T^ '£(^€(70; lyr.ygp^ai IfOftT. 

"» id. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273. 1. 3. 'e^ ^l -vaT^ [t5 



( 236 ) 

age of St. Irenaeiis ; and Origen '^°, who flourished 
at the beginning' of the subsequent aera. And to the 
testimony which Clement has borne to the Epistle of 
St. Paul, we may add that of St. Clemens Roma- 
nus '^' in the same age, and of Origen *^^ and Dio- 
nysius Alexandrinus '^^ in the succeeding. Euse- 
bius of Cffisarea^ who flourished at the beginning of 
the following century^ and whose opinion must be 
allowed to possess great weight, though he speaks 
rather dubiously in assigning the Apocalypse to St. 
John ^'^^ ascribes the Epistie to the Hebrews to St. 
Paul *^^ without hesitation. And St. Athanasius '^^ 

Conf. Gricsb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. pp. 616. 619. 620. 

'^°Orig. Horn, in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 95. d. ri hT 'msp) ra eivx- 
•Tsacivio? T^syetv i'iri to s-rj^oc, t5 Uae, Icoavvs; os EvafysXiov "ev y.ulaht^ 
T^oiTTiv . h/pa^s Vs ^ TYiV AitoK'xkv^iv y.. t. e. 

^^' Vid. supr. p. 232. n. "\ 

"^ Orig. Horn, in Ep. ad Hebrr. Tom. IV. p. 698. ly^ ^ 
a.7ro(pa,UQ{y.£voi; iliro\u! at, on rx (xhv vorifxula '?a *A9ros"o?v« is'tV ^ SI 

a(7'rrs^i) a^oT^ioy^ccipYiaccPtoq roc £tp7?^x,£i/a v'lro t3 h^cta-KuXa. el' tk «»• 
£i£xA*3crta t^H ravTriv ETrtroAyjy uq Ylav?x8y avrfi suooy.i{J^eircj yd klTi 

*^^ From the following quotation of Heb. x. 34. and expiess 
reference to St. Paul, Dr. Lardner has concluded, Cred. of 
Gosp. Hist. Vol. IV. p. 663. that Dionysius considered that 
Epistle the work of the great apostle ; Dionys. ap. Eus. Hist. 
Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. xli. p. 304. 1. 34. liiy-Xivov Ti y.a.) viravtx^i^* 

»3*Vid. supr. p. 230. n. '°^ 
'35 Vid. supr. p. 232. n. ^'\ 
»36 Vid. supr. p. 223. n, ^\ 



( 237 ) 
and St. Jerome *^^ at the close of the same centuiy, 
speak in the same terms, without limitation or 
exception ; these extraordinary men may be al- 
lowed to deliver the opinion of the Eastern and 
Western Churches '^% if the testimony of either 
may be collected from the statement of individuals. 
Of this '' cloud of witnesses/' each of whom is a 
host in himself, the earlier part lived at that pe- 
riod »^9^ when the true state of the question could 

*" S. Hier. Dardan. Ep. cxxix. Tom. II. p. 370. " Quod si 
cam \_Epist0la7n ad Hehrceos^ Latinorum consuetudo non reci- 
pit inter Scriptm*as Canonicas ; nee Graecorum quidem Ecele- 
sia Apocalyjjsim Joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt : et taraen 
nos utramque susc!pimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudi- 
nem, sed vetenim scriptoru7n auctoritatem sequentes, qui ple- 
rumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de 
apocryphis facere solent, (quippe qui et Gentilium litteraram 
raro utantur exemplis,) sed quasi canonicis et ecdesiasticis, 

^'^ Greg, Nazianz. Orat. xxi. ed. Par. Tom. I. p. 376. c. y.a.) 
maaoLV ixh zjaXuiaiv ^i^oy Z5u,a(xu bs vc'av [0 A^avaTiOfj c/t^O^s- 
TTjcraf X. T. e. Id. ibid. p. 397. a. ^rio-a.^, ^l »rw, y^ zoaiosv^zls 5^ 
CJai^SlJcraS", wrs o^oy y.\v zinc-y.o'Kr.q bIvui tov intiva ^iov )^ rpoTrof, vofJ.GV 
$e tC) op^lo^iois roc g/.£tv« ^oyfj.xloc. S. August, conlr. Jul. Pe- 
lao-. Lib. I. cap. vii. Tom. X. p. 519. b. " Hieronymus— qui 
Gra;co et Latino, insuper et Hebrseo eruditus eloquio, ex Occi- 
dentali adOrientalemtransiens Ecclesiam, in locis Sanctis et in 
literis sacris, usque ad decrepitam vixit setatem. Ilic omnesy 
qui ante ilium, aliquid ex utraqite parte orbis, de doctrina ecde^ 
siastica scripserant^ legit," &c. 

'39 St. Clement is reltrred to A. D. 80 : Justin 3Jartyr to 
A.D. 130: S. Irenseus to A. D. 160: Melito to A. D. 170: 
Theophilus to A. D. 180 : Clemens Alexandrinus to A. D. 190. 
Apolionius to A. D. 192 : Tertulliun to A. D. 2(X) : Ilippolytus 
to A. D. 220 : Origen to A. D. 230 : Eusebius to A.Y) S20 : 
S. Athauasius to A.D. 330: S. Jerome to A.D. 3S0. Th:i 



( 238 ) 

have been scarcely missed by the most careless in- 
quirer ; and the testimony of those primitive fathers 
is connected by a very few intermediate links with 
that of the last witnesses to whose authority an ap- 
peal has been made on the subject under discus- 
sion. 

As far as respects the number of the canonical 
books, the Vulgate^ which is in use in the Eastern 
and Western Churciies^ admits of the clearest vin- 
dication. If even those books, which are repre- 
sented as of doubtful authority, admit of so full and 
satisfactory a defence, we may necessarily infer the 
unquestionable authority of those which have never 
excited suspicion. The works of Clement''^*' and 
Origen '^' in the East, of Tertuliian ''^^ and Cyprian 
»+^ in the West, who generally quote from all the 
canonical books, are sufficiently declaratory of the 
testimony of both Churches, as derived from imme- 
morial tradition. The evidence of Lucianus and 
Eusebius^ to whom St. Athanasius ^"^^ and St. Je- 

carliest of those witnesses lived nearly in the age when St. John 
saw the Apocalyptick vision; vidsupr. p. 124;. n, ^^, 

'^ Vid. supr. p. 235. n. ^-^. 

^' Vid. supr. p. 215. n.^^ 

"^^ Vid. supr. p. 214. n.^\ 

'*^ The three books of testimonies, which St. Cyprian Ed» 
Oxon. p. 1 7. sqq. has collected not only from the New but the 
Old Testament, contain a sufficient voucher for the above as« 
sertion. 

'^* Vid. Synops. Script. Tom. II. p. 204-. a. conf. Lib. de Sy- 
nodd. Tom. I. p. 735. e. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. x. p. 
87. 1. 37. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. vi. p, 98. 1, 39. S* 
Hilar, de Synodd. p. 1168. c. Ed. i^lened* 



( 239 ) 

rome '-^^ respectively refer, will connect the tradi- 
tionary chain, as extending from the apostolical age 
to the final establishment of Christianity under the 
EmperourTheodosius. After this period it must be 
unnecessary to search after proofs in support of the 
integrity of the Canonical Scripture '^^. 

At the last-mentioned period^ two remarkable 
passages, as I have already observed, had been 
partially withdrawn from the sacred text ^^"^ ; though 
now admitted almost without exception, into the 
Tulgar text of the Eastern and Western Chuches. 
The testimony of those Churches, not less than the 
integrity of the sacred Canon, is involved in the fate 
of those passages ; since their authority must be 
impeached, if either passage prove spurious. A 
few considerations, however, in addition to what has 
been already advanced, will place their authoi'ity 
beyond all reasonable exception. 

The objection to those passages lies in the cir- 
cumstance of their being absent from some copies of 
St. Jerome's times, and fi'om some which have de- 
scended to the present period. But this considera- 
tion falls infinitely short of proving them spurious, 
or more than expunged from the text of Eusebius, 

'^5 Vid, supr. p. 125. n. '^^ 

'"^^ The testimony of those writers, from the earliest age, has 
been collected by Dr. Lardner in his Cred. of Gosp. Hist. The 
evidence of those who support the authority of the Epist. to the 
Hebrews, and Revelations, is summed up in Suppl. to B. z. P. 
II. Vol. II. p. 331. sqq. Vol. Til. p. 355. sqq. 

'*' Mark xvi. 9—11. John viii. 1—11. vid. supr. p, 35. n. ^^ 
p. 37. n. <55. 



( 240 ) 

and, after his example^ omitted in the text of the 
orthodox revisers. That they were absent from the 
former edition^ is evident from the testimony of the 
Eusebian Canons, in which they do not appear '^^ ; 
that they were absent from the latter, appears from 
the positive testimony of St. Jerome ^^^, confirmed 
by that of St. Epiphanius '^°. The determination of 
the question must therefore turn on this alternative ; 
their having been suppressed in the received ' text 
of St. Jerome's ag*e, or inserted in that of the sub- 
sequent period. The entire circumstances of the 
case tend to establish the former, and disprove the 
latter supposition. 

The probabilities that Eusebius suppressed those 
}>assag*es in his edition, have been already calcu- 
'lated '^\ and, until disproved, I am free to con- 
clude, have been established from the circumstances 
under which his edition was published. That they 
were omitted also in the text of the orthodox revi- 
sers, is, I conceive, evident, from the testimony of 
St. Jerome ; as he lived in the age when both these 
editions prevailed, and declares, that those passages 
were absent from the generality of copies extant in 
his times *^\ Two witnesses will be now sufficient 
to establish the authenticity of those passag-es, and 
to connect the chain of tradition, from wliich their 
authority is derived ; one, to prove that they were 

»+8 Vid.supr. p, 36. n.^^, 
*^^ Vid. supr. n. '^^ 
'^^ Vid. supr. p. 93. n. "'^, 
^'' Vid.^supr. p. 35. sqq. 
»5*Vid!'supr. n. ^'^. 



( 241 ) 

removed from the prevailing text of the age ; and 
one^ to show that they existed in the antecedent edi- 
tion. For the first position St. Epiphanius, who 
describes the text of the orthodox revisers^ is the best 
voucher. He^ however^ declares that these persons 
positively omitted some exceptionable passages : and 
we find the passages in question omitted in those 
copies^ which want the passage which he declares 
was suppressed '^'^. For the second position, the 
best voucher must be his contemporary St. Jerome^ 
who has inserted those passages in his transla- 
tion '^*. He has thus implicitly asserted their ex- 
istence^ in the old copies of the original '^^, by 
which he corrected his version. As his testimony to 
the existence of these passages is, consecjuently, an- 
tecedent to the only grounds of suspicion on which 
they are impeached ; it is adequate to remove any 
objection to which they have been exposed, as fill- 
ing up that breach in the ecclesiastical tradition, by 
which their canonical authority is properly sup- 
ported. 

Clear as the case is in which it is conceived that 
these passages were suppressed ; that in which it is 
supposed that they were interpolated is involved in 
inextricable difficulties. On reviewing, however 
casually, the internal evidence, it seems as fully to 

'-^ VId. supr. p. 93. n. * ^ Hence we find, that not only 
Luke xxi. 4-3, 44, is wanting in the Alexandrine, Vatican, and 
Brescia MSS. but John viii. 1— -11. The Vatican MS. also omits 
Mark xvi. 9—11. vid. Gricsb. nott. in locc. 

"^* Vid. supr. p. 94. n. '°^ p. 35. n. ^''. p. 37. n. ^^ 

**M'id. supr.p. IGl. n. "^. 

11 



( 242 ) 

establisli the former, as to invalidate the latter posi- 
tion. ' The history of the adulteress, contained in 
St. John, would be likely to offend some over scru- 
pulous readers ; as liable to be misrepresented by 
persons waywardly inclined to pervert the sacred 
Oracles. The narrative of the resurrection, con- 
tained in St. iSIarls would be likewise liable to ex- 
ception ; as containing some circumstances in the 
account of that events apparently different from that 
of the other Evangelists. These considerations 
would operate as strongly in obtaining the suppres- 
sion of those passages, as in preventing their in- 
sertion in the Sacred Canon. If we suppose them 
authentick, they contain no difficulty which may 
not be easily cleared up ; if we suppose them spu- 
rious^ it is as impossible to account for their being so 
exceptionable, as they thus appear, as it is to ac- 
count for their having been admitted, with all their 
imperfections^ into the vulgar text of the Eastern 
and Western Churches. No object appears to ex- 
ist which could have induced any person to invent 
such passages^ no influence which could have in- 
duced those Churches collectively to incorporate 
them in the Canon. 

When we inspect more narrowly the purpose 
which the different Evangelists had in view^ we find 
those passages more than reconcilable with the ob- 
ject of their different narratives. The proof of the 
resurrection was indispensable to the completion of 
tlie Gospel history, by whatever person it might be 
written ; this being the great miracle on which the 
truth of Christ's mission depended^ and the proper* 



( 243 ) 

object of the apostolical testimony '^^ This proof 
was ^iven, by the express appointment of our Lord, 
in Galilee '^^ ; and, by manifesting himself by the 
most infallible evidence to his apostles, '' showing 
them his hands and his side '^^." Let it be however 
observed, that St. Mark records the promise, which 
foretold this plenary revelation of our Lord to the 
disciples '^^ ; and that his account of the accom- 
plishment of it is contained only in the suspected 
passage '^°. From its being thus indispensably ne- 
cessary, not merely to complete the general pur- 
pose of an Evangelist, in writing a Gospel ; but to 
complete the express object of St. Mark, it must be 
considered a part of the authentick canonical text. 

With respect to the questionable passage in St. 
John, the proofs of its authenticity, though more 
remotely sought, are not less decisive. According 
to the tradition of the primitive Church, St. John 
composed his Gospel, with the express view of op- 
posing the rising heresies of the Nicolaitans and 
Cerinthians '^\ Of those heretics the apostle de- 

*56 Act. i. 21, 22. X. 39, 40, 41. comp. Pears, on Creed. Vol. 
I. p. 380. 

''7 Comp. Matt. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 7, 10, 16. 

'58 John XX. 20. 

'59 Mark xiv. 28. " But after that lam risen, I mil go before 
yoM into Galilee.'^ 

'^° Id. xvi. 14. " Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as 
they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and 
hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had 
seen him after he tvas risen. Comp. Matt, xxviii. 7, 10, 16, 17. 

'^' S. Iren. adv. Hasr. Lib. III. cap. xi. § 1. p. 188. « Hanc 
fidem annuncians Joannes Domini discipuJus, voleas per Evan- 

R 2 



( 244 ) 

daises; ''thou hast them that hold the doctrlneof 
Balaam^ who taught — to eat things sacrificed to 
idols^ and to commit fornication. So hast thou also 
them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, 
which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will com^e 
unto thee quickly '^^/' &c. Marriage had been 
condemned and rejected by those abandoned mis- 
creants; who asserted the lawfulness of the most 
promiscuous intercourse of the sexes '^\ And by 
this doctrine^, which was but too well suited to the 
low state of morals in the times of heathen supersti- 
tion, they had seduced numbers from the severe 
discipline of the primitive church. It was therefore 
required, by the express object which the Evan- 
gelist proposed to himself, in writing against them, 
that he should provide a remedy for both evils * to 
prevent the inroad of vice on the one hand, and to 
provide for reclaiming it on the other. With this 
view, he selects out of the incidents of our Lord's 

geJii annunt'iationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseininatus 
erat hominibus, errorem, et multo priiis ab his qui diciintur 
Nicolaiice, qui sunt vulsio ejus quae falso cognoniinatur scien- 
tia," &c. Vid. infr. n. ^"K Conf. Tertul. adv. Haer. cap. 
xxxiii. p. 210. Hier, Prsef. in Matt. Prooem. ad. Euseb. Cremori. 
Tom. VI. p. xi. 

^c» Rev. ii. 14, 15, 16. 

**^ S. Iren. ib. Lib. I. cap. xxvl. $ S. p. 105. Nicolaita^. 
autem magistrum quidem habent Nicolaura, unum ex vii qui 
primi ad Diaconium ab Apostolis ordinati sunt ; qui indiscrete 
vivunt. Plenissime autem per Joannis Apocalypsim manifes- 
tantur qui sint ; nullam differentiayn esse docentes in mcechandoj' 
&c. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IIL cap. xxix. p. 123. 1. 18. 
S. Epiphan. Hser. xxv. p. 77. c. 



( 245 ) 

life^ the remarkable circumstances of his having 
sanctioned a marriage by his presence'^*; and par- 
doned a penitent adulteress^ on the condition of her 
" sinning no more ^^K" Viewed with reference to 
those circumstances^ these narratives are corrobo- 
rative of each other; and are illustrated by the de- 
clarations of our Lord, which the Apostle relates ; 
'' they teach to commit fornication — repent , or L 
will come unto thee," &c. In this view they are 
necessary to complete the object of the Evangelist; 
whose intentions in writing are in a great measure 
frustrated^ if we suppose them suppressed. 

The testimony which the Eastern and Western 
Churches bear to the authenticity of Mark xvi. 
9 — 20, John viii. 1 — 11, in adopting those passages 
in the great body of manuscripts of the Greek and 
Latin, is consequently most amply confirmed by the 
internal evidence, and nothing weakened by nega- 
tive testimony, by which they have been condemned. 
Conceiving those passages spurious, it is above the 
reach of ordinary comprehension, to discover an 
adequate cause for their having been generally re- 
ceived; considering the immense number, and wide 
dispersion of the Scriptures, and the obvious objec- 
tions to which tliose passages were exposed from the 
earliest period •^^. That they occur in the vulgar 

*'* Johnii. l—ll. 

'" lb. viii. 11. 

*^^ The following observation of Victor Antiochenus, on 
Marc. xvi. while it seems to establish the above position, will 
bring the subject before us home to Eusebius Caesariensis ; 
Biblioth. Patrr. Tom. IV. p. 336. c. d. '* Etsi Maria Magda- 



( 246 ) 

edition of the Greek and Latin is indisputable ; and 
the only mode of accounting for this circumstance, 
is^ by conceiving them part of the original text^ as 
published by the inspired writers. 

With respect to John viii. 1 — 11, it is indeed less 
constantly retained in the Greek '^^, than Mark xvi. 
9 — 20 '^^ ; but while the cause of this circumstance 

lena et Maria Jacobi, et Salome aroraata praeparaverant, atta- 

men si Eusebio Ccesarieiisi Jides est, non sunt tres illse, quae orto 
jam sole ad monumentum venerunt, sed aliae innominatae. — 
Secundum Eusebium igitur, Marcus non de Magdalena, sed de 
aliis incerti nominis mulieribus haec narrat. Neque enim fieri 
potest, addit idem, ut Magdalena post tantas res visas, orto de- 
mum sole, ad monumentum veniret, aut quis lapidem revolveret 
inquirer et." 

'^7 Griesb. Nov. Test. not. in Mar. xvi. 9. " Habent peri- 
copam banc Codices GrcBci, escepto uno B, omnes ; Evange- 
listeria, etiam antiquiora, e. g. 1, 2, 6, Mt. B. H; VersioneSy 
etiam Syra Hieros" &c. Id. not. in Job. vii. 53. " Pericopa 
de adultera extat in D, G, H, K, M, N," &c. On Cod. L. 
the learned M. Griesbach observes, Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. 
159. " vers. 53 usque ad viii. 11. deest in L. vacuo quidem re- 
licto spatio, sed non tanto, ut pericopa scribi in eo potuisset.'* 
To these uncial manuscripts, M. Griesbach adds more than 
100 MSS. written in the smaller character, which retain this 
passage. 

*^^ Bengel. Apparat. Crit. var. in Job. viii. 1. p. 251. ed 
Burk. " Versio Coptica in alio cod. habet, in alio non habet ; 
jieque habet translatio ejus Arabica. Versio Syiiaca Nov. 
Test, non habet. — In quibusdam marmscriptis codicibus Syriacis 
hroenitur, inquit Joh. Gregorius, sed asterismo hoc notatur 
^to'U^si »mn>« quod non sit te\tus." Id. ibid. p. 252. *' ad 
cap. X. Joh. amandata est in Vaticano Versionis Perslcce Co- 
dice ; ad calcem Evang. Joh. in 7ionnuUisy et apud Er. et Pari- 
sinis tribus, (quorum duo expresse affirmant^ eam in antiquis 
txemplarihus ex&taie:) et apud Avmenios Cod. duo Seculi X. 



( 247 ) 

is sufficiently apparent '^^ we can trace the tradition 
in favour of this passage^ to a period so remote^ as to 
place its authenticity beyond controversion. It will 
be readily granted^ that if this passage be an inter- 
polation^ it must have been invented by some one. 
But of those persons^ who possessed the power of 
introducing it into the sacred Canon^ as having re- 
vised the Scriptures^ there is not one to whom it 
can be ascribed with the smallest appearance of 
reason. 

1 . As this passage occurs in the Greek, it cannot 
be ascribed to Athanasius or the last revisers. As 
far as we possess any knowledge of their editions^ 
they omitted this passage '^° : it is quoted by antece- 

illud exemplum in textu. non habent, in Jim vero Ev. Joan, est 
jjositicm, cum notatione in Codd. antiquioribus et melioris notas 
non inveniri." 

*'' Id. ibid. p. 251. «' Omittitur etiam in Cod. MS. Ebne- 
riano, sed tantummodo a vers. 3. ac sub Jinem Evangelii secun- 
dum Johannem ita suppletm; et versui 2 annectitur, ut Jcicile 
appareat, librarios periocham, pro genuina agnitam, a pitblica 
iantummodo lectione removisse.''* Id. ibid. p. 252. — *' et plane 
Codices banc periocham omittentes sunt fere Leciionaiia : ut 
niirum sit, earn non in pluribus codicibus omissam, et tamen hodie 
complures de ejus germanitate dubitare." 

'^" A distinctive mark by which those rectified copies are 
known, is the omission of Luke xxii. 43, 44 ; but these verses 
are omitted in the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. : we must 
therefore rank these manuscripts among the copies rectified by 
the orthodox. In neither, however, is Job. viii. 1 — 11. appa- 
rent : we must therefore infer, that it was one of the passages 
which were omitted by the orthodox revisers : which suppo- 
sition fully accounts for the variation of MSS. with re<^pect U 
this passage. 



( 248 ) 

dent writers'^*: and St. Jerome^ in introducing it 
into the Latin Vulgate, has imphcitly declared'"*, 
that it was found in the copies antecedent to their 
revisal. Nor can it be ascribed to Eusebius Cffisa- 
riensis; it does not occur in his text or canons^ and 
is apparently glanced at in his history, as entitled to 
little credit '7^ Nor can it be assigned to Lucianus 
or Hesychius; for their real or imputed interpola- 
tions were rejected, on the credit of the same copies, 
by St. Jerome '^^, in whose Vulgate this passage is 
certainly retained. As it exists, however, in the 
Egyptian and Byzantine text'^^ and was not in- 
vented by those persons, by whom these editions 
were first revised; it must have necessarily existed 
in the original text from which they were respec- 
tively derived. 

2. As occurring in the Latin, this passage cannot 
be ascribed to St. Jerome^ the last reviser. He ex- 
pressly states it existed in the old Italick version '^^ 
which preceded his revisal; and in it we conse- 
quently find it at this day '^^ Nor can it be as- 

^^' Vid. infr. p. 250. 

^"* Vid. supr. p. 161. n."^ 

^" Vid. supr. p. 38. et nn. in loc. 

^7^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ''■°. 

'^5 Of this assertion the MSS. marked D. G; viz. the cele- 
brated Cambridge and Harleian Manuscripts are sufficient 
vouchers : vid. supr. p. 246. n. ^^7. 

'76 Vid. supr. p. 37. n. ^K 

'77 It occurs in the Codex Corbeiensis and Gatlanus, not to 
mention other MSS. : and these MSS. possess that similarity 
among themselves, and that diversity from the Vulgate, which 
proves, that this passage could not have proceeded from St. 



( 249 ) 

cribed to Philastriiis of Brescia, or Eusebius of 
Verceli; for it does not occur in those manu- 
scripts '78^ in which alone their respective texts can 
be supposed to exist. As it, however, occurs in the 
Old Italick translation, in which it existed in the 
times of St. Jerome; the only inference is, that it 
must have existed in this version, when it was ori- 
ginally formed. 

Thus following up the tradition of the Eastern 
and Western Churches, until it loses itself in time 
immemorial; we find their united testimony as deli- 
vered in the Received Text, fully establishes the 
authenticity of the passage under consideration. 
And this evidence is finally confirmed by the ex- 
plicit testimony of early ecclesiastical writers. 
Wherever we might expect any traces of this pas- 
sage to exist, we find it specifically noticed. It 
occurs in the Harmony of Tatian '^^^ who wrote in 

Jerome. I subjoin a specimen of the various readings ; Joli. 
viii. 1. pej-rexit in montem. Vulg. ascendit in montem. Corb, 
Gat. — lb. 2. et diluculo. Vidg. ct mane cum factum esset, Corb. 
Gat. — Ibid, et sedens. Vulg. et cum consedisset. Corb. Gat. — 
lb. 3. in adulterio, Vidg. in mcechatione. Corb. Gat. et statuermit, 
Vulg. et cum statuissent. Corb. Gat. — lb. 4. et dixerunt ei. Fuh. 
dixerunt ad eum. — Ibid, in adulierio. Vidg. in mcechatione, 
Corb. Gat. — lb. 5. Moyses mandavit nobis Juijusmodi lapidare. 
Vidg. prcecepit nobis Moyses iit qui in adidterio deprehenditur 
lapidetur, Corb. Gaf» 

*^^ Blanchin. Prolegomm. in Evang. Quadr. p. 178. 

'^5 Vid. Tatian. Harm. ap. Biblloth. Patrr. Tom. II. p. 184'. 
That the original of the Latin Harmony, which is here referred 
to, was the DIatessaron of Tatian, has been proved by Dr. Lard- 
cer, from the concurrence of the Latin and Arabick translations. 



( 250 ) 

little more than fifty years of the death of St. John ; 
it is noticed in the Synopsis of Scripture '^% which 
is generally ascribed to St. Athanasius ; and in the 
Diatessaron^ which is ascribed to Ammonius^ by 
Victor Capuanus '^\ Nor was it unknown to Euse- 
bius '^^ to St. Ambrose '^^ to St. Chrysostome, and 
St. Augustine '^^ But the testimony of St. Jerome 
is definitive in establishing* the authenticity of this 
passage. While he expressly states, that it existed 
in the old version of the Latin '^% he has implicitly 
admitted, that it existed in the ancient copies of the 
Greek, by giving it a place in his Vulgate '^*^. Tak- 
ino- therefore the testimony of the Eastern and West- 
ern Churches, as contained in the Received Text 

and the external testimony of St. Eplirem : Cred. of Gosp. Hist. 
Vol.III. p. 123— 132. 

^s^ Vid. Synops. Scrip, ap. S. Athan. Tom. II. p. 185. e. 
Altliough this work is now generally admitted not to have been 
compiled by St. Athanasius ; vid. Patrr. Benedd. ibid. p. 124<: 
the learned M. Bengel has proved, from the internal evidence, 
that it must have been written in or near the age of that ancient 
father ; Apparat. Crit. P. I. p. 30. 

'^^ Vid. Evangg. iv. Narrat. Ammon. Alex. ap. Biblioth. 
Patrr. Tom. III. p. 22. Although M. de Valois has proved that 
this Diatessaron differs from Ammonius's Harmony ; Euseb. 
Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxix. p. 194. n. " : it is admitted by 
Dr. Lardner to contain the substance of that work, Cred. ib. pp. 
133, 134'. As it was known to Victor Capuanus, who probably 
disposed it in its present form, vid. Eibl. Patr. ibid. p. 22. it 
must have existed before A. D. 5i5. 

*s* Vid. Euseb. ut supr. p. 38. n. ^l 

'^' Vid. S. Ambros. Tom. II. col. 892. § 4. ed. Bened. 

•^•^ Vid. supr. p. 37. n. ""K 

*85 Vid. supr. p. 38. n. ""K 

»8^ Vid. supr. p. 116. n. "\ 



( 251 ) 

and Version ; as supported by the uninterrupted 
chain of tradition^ and as expressly avouched by 
St. Jerome ; we must acknowledge this pas- 
sage '^^ as a part of the genuine text of Scripture, 
or reject that testimony, on which the whole of the 
Sacred Canon is proved authentick. 

The determination of the integrity of the Greek 
Vulgate, now turns on the decision of this question, 
whether those texts relative to the doctrine of the 
Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity, which have 
been already mentioned, as impugned by the advo- 
cates for a more correct text than exists in our 
printed editions, must be considered authentick or 
spurious. 

I have hitherto laboured to no purpose if it is not 
admitted, that I have already laid a foundation suffi- 
ciently broad and deep for maintaining the authen- 
ticity of the contested verses. The negative argu- 
ment arising in their favour, from the probability 
that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has 
been already stated at large '^^ Some stress may 

'" I subjoin M. BengePs summary of the external testimony 
which supports the authenticity of Mar. xvi.9 — 20. Apparat. 
Crit. not. in h. 1. p. 1 70. " Irenasus, Ammonii monotessaron, 
Harmonia Tatiano adscripta, Eusebii Canones, Synopsis apud 
Athanasium, Ambros. in Luc. xxiv. et Lib. IL de Sp. Sanct. 
c. V. et Lib. I. de Poenit. cap. vii. Augustinus, Gregorius, 
Photius, Theophylactus. Agnoscunt etiam periocham Cle- 
mens Rom. Clemens Alex. Dionysius Alex. Justinus Martyr, 
Hippolytus in trad, apost. de charism. Nestorius ap. Cyrillum 
Alex. Cyrillus Hier. Damascenus, Cassianus, Procopius Gazaeus, 
Anastasius Sinaita, Nicetas, alii." 

'" Vid. supr. pp. 27—42. 



( 252 ) ' 

be laid on this extraordinary circumstance^ that the 
whole of the important interpolations, which are thus 
conceived to exist in the Received Text^ were con- 
trary to his peculiar notions. If we conceive them 
cancelled by him^ there is nothing wonderful in the 
matter at issue; but if we consider them subse- 
quently interpolated, it is next to miraculous that 
they should be so circumstanced. And what must 
equally excite astonishment, to a certain degree they 

V are not more opposed to the peculiar opinions of 
Eusebius, by whom I conceive tliey were cancelled^ 
than of the Calholicks, by whom it is conceived they 
were inserted in the text. When separated from 
the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, 
the doctrine which they appear most to favour is 
liiat of the Sabeliians; but this heresy was as con- 
trary to the tenets of those who conformed to the 
Catholick as of those who adhered to the Arian opi- 
nions. It thus becomes as improbable that the for- 
mer should have inserted, as it is probable the latter 
suppressed those verses; and just as probable is it, 
that both parties might have acquiesced in their sup- 
pression when they were once removed from the 
text of Scripture. If Ave connect this circumstance 
with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the 
avowed adversary of the Sabeliians, expunged these 

. . verses from his text, and that every manuscript from 
which they have disappeared is lineally descended 
from his edition, every difficulty in which this intri- 
cate subject is involved directly vanishes. The so- 
lution of the question lies in this narrow space, that 
he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his 



( 253 ) 

peculiar opinions : and the peculiar apprehensions 
which were indulged of Sabellianism, l3y the ortho- 
dox, prevented them from restoring- those verses, 
or citing them in their controversies with the 
Arians. 

Thus far we have but attained probability, thougli 
clearly of the highest degree, in favour of the au- 
thenticity of these disputed verses. The question 
before us is, however, involved in difficulties which 
still require a solution. In order to solve these, and 
to investigate more carefully the claims of those 
verses to authenticity, I shall lay them before the 
reader as they occur in the Greek and Latin Vul- 
gate; subjoining those various readings, which are 
supposed to preserve the genuine text. 

Acts XX. 28. 

UfQffix^'* '="' '^"'^^^'^'i — TTot^ali/- Attendite vobis — regere ec 

«v rw hy.>>'ftaiuv t5 ©sy, riv clesiain Dei, quam acquisivit 
7r6pt£7rot:$c-«Io ^iflfr TB ly^H ul'[Aulo^, sanguine suo. Vid<y, 
Vulg, 

1 Tim. in. 16. 

Kent QixoXoyayAvax; iA.eya. er* to Et manifeste magnum est 

T^? ivat^iiaq i^.vrrjfK^v Ssos I9- pietatis sacramentum, quod 
AiiBfu/% III aafAj l^iKuiuBn h manifestatum est in carne jus- 
vyivi*.u\i — P'ulg, tificatum est in spiritu — Vulg. 

1 Job. V. 7, 8. 
"On T^a^j i.Vjv 0? /AajJlygailgf, — Quoniam tres sunt qui tes- 

timonium dant in ccdo ; Pater, 
Vcrhum, et Sjjiritus Sanctus : 
et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres 
sunt qui testimo?iium dant in 
• — TO TliEyfxa, Koci to t-'oit'p, kcc) to terra : Spiritus, et aqua, et 
alyx' xcc» oi tpu? stj to iv jfViv. sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt. 



( 254 ) 

As the Byzantine text thus reads^ in Act. xx. 28. 
Uyj.rKTiocu t5 0g5, and in 1 Tim. iii. 16. 0soV H>a^ff^"^'»l ,* 
the Palestine, or Alexandrine, according to M. Gries- 
bachj reads, in the former place, ImXritrixv tS Ku^/W, 
and in the latter, og £>avs^a)^>:. In 1 John v. 7. the 
Byzantine and Palestine texts agree, while they 
differ from the common reading of the Latin Vul- 
gate;^ — omitting h tw a^ai/w, o noiTVPy o Aoyo? Xp TO 

|wafTupavT£? £1/ T>7 y^, which occurs in the Received 
Text of our printed editions ; and answers to '' in 
coelo. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres 
unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in 
terra,'" in the Latin Vulgate. Such are the prin- 
cipal varieties of those celebrated texts. 

In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of 
these readings, the first attention is due to the in- 
ternal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work 
upon solid ground. For the authenticity of some 
part of the verses in dispute we have that strong 
evidence which arises from universal consent ; all 
manuscripts and translations supporting some part 
of the context of the contested passages. In the 
remaining parts we are given a choice between two 
readings, one only of which can be authentick. 
And in making our election, we have, in the common 
principles of plain sense and ordinary language, a 
certain rule by which we may be directed. Gross 
solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable 
oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be 
ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two 
given readings one be exposed to such objections. 



( 255 ) 

there is but the alternative^ that the other must be 
authentick. 

On applying this principle to the Palestine Text, 
in the first instance^ it seems to bring- the point in 
dispute to a speedy determination. The reading 
which it proposes in the disputed texts is not to be 
reconciled vv ith sense^ with grammar^ or the uniform 
phraseology of the New Testament. 

1. In Acts XX. 28, the phrase lK>tXn(Tixv rS KypiW 
is unknown to the language of the Greek Testa- 
ment, and wholly irreconcileable with the use of 
iV*2 oi7fj.a.Tog for ai(xa.Tog aurS, in the Context, as lead- 
ing to a false or absurd meaning. The phrase 
UxXnTiocv t5 ©fiS is that uniformly used by the evan- 
gelical writers, and that used above ten times by St. 
Paul '^^ to whom the expression is ascribed by the 
inspired writer. And 0£a is absolutely necessary to 
qualify the subjoined ISU; as the latter term, if used 
with Kupi'a, must imply that our Lord could have 
purchased the Church with other blood than his 
own '9°: which is apparently absurd, and certainly 
impertinent. 

'^^ 1 Cor. i. 2. X. 32. xi. 16. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 
1 Thes. ii. 14. 2 Thes. i. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. While the Apos- 
tle is thus represented in the Corrected Text as deviating from 
his uniform phraseology, the simple term inyt'K'/icr'iuv, which is 
used in at least twenty-two places by St. Luke, and in double 
that number by St. Paul, would have answered the same end 
as the unusual phrase tKyM<^'iocv ih Ky^ts; since the Apostle 
might have said, and his hi&itorian have written, t'>;» tHKX7ia^ciVf 

*^^ Pears. Expos, of the Creed, vol. ii. p. 1S8, ed. Oxf. 1797. 
** "ihnf «T/A« is opposed to «Ty.« «^^9Tpo». And therefore it is 



( 256 ) 

2. In 1 Tim. iii. 16^ the phrase oV l(pccvipoo3rvi is 
h'ttle reconcileable with sense or grammar *9'. In 
order to make it Greeks in the sense of/' he who 
was manifested/' it should be 6 (px]^£pu^e\g; but this 
reading' is rejected by the universal consent of ma- 
nuscripts and translations. The subjunctive article 
og is indeed used indefinitely ; but it is then put for 
og ^v, Off ixvj ofig ^Vy zjotg ofi?*'^; as in this state it is 
synonymous with ichoever, whosoever, we have 
only to put this term into the letter of the text^ in 
order to discover that it reduces the reading* of M. 
Griesbach and of the Palestine Text to palpable 
nonsense. 

observable the author of the Hacovlan Catechism, in his answer 
to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of 
i^iov ov p-oprium, — whereas the strength of our argument lies in 
these words, hci t5 l^'m uI'ijlccto^, or, as the Alexandrine MS. and 
one mentioned by Beza, ^i« t5 ul'i^uroq t5 l^^eJ* The latter 
phrase is, indeed, the more emphatical of the two, and, as we 
should express it, means * by blood, his very blood.* 

'^^ Objections have been made to the want of grammar in 
this passage, by M. M. Ernesti and Matthasi ; on whose com- 
petency to decide this point, it is superfluous to add an obser- 
vation : vid. Matth. Nov. Test. Prsef. in Epistt. Catholl. Tom. 
XI. p. xlv. The former contends, that the structure of the sen- 
tence requires to (pavspu^lv ; doubtless in reference to fAvr^ifiov. 
But I apprehend the tenour of the sense absolutely requires 
<pa,vs^u^s]<;. Instances of this structure are easily produced 
from the Old and New Testament. Sirac. xlviii. 9. o dvxXrr 

(p3"SiS- iv A«i;\a7rj TTt/'foj ; Act. i. 11. o oi\Oik'n<p^c\s uip' l^uv elc rlv 

^psivov : analogous to which, the phrase I l^ye^ivoc, * he 'who is to 
come,' is applied to designate the Messiah, Mat. xi. 4. Heb. 
X. 37. 

'^^ Vid. Mar. iv. 25. ix. 40, 41. Mat. x. 27. Conf. x. 14 
i}2, 33. 



( 237 ) 

S. In 1 Job. V. 7, three 7nasculine adjective?^ 
r/)!K ol jwapTup8i/Te?, are forced into union with three 

neuter substantives^ to ^vsu/^a kx\ to v^ojp xal to aty.a ; 

a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any wrir 
ter, sacred or profane '9\ And low as the opinion 
may be which the admirers of the Corrected Text 
may hold of the purity of the style of St. John ; it 
is a grosser solecism than they can fasten on the 
holy Evangelist, who, in his context, has made one 
of these adjectives regularly agree with its corres- 
pondent substantive in the neuter: ytoa to Trvivfioc 

ffi TO UaOTVpaVf OTl TO T3-]/lV[JI,CC IflV ?? OcXv^HX, "Ot» 

T/jfK tl<riv ol fjt.ocpTvp'^vri^. k. t. I. There seems to be 
consequently as little reason for tolerating this text 
as either of the preceding. 

From the alternative to which the question has 
been reduced, it might now be inferred, that the 
reading of our printed editions, which is supported^ 
in 1 Tim. iii. 16. by the Greek Vulgate, in 1 Job. 
V. 7. by the Latin Vulgate, and in Act. xx. 28. by 
both the Greek and Latin Vulgate, contained the 

'^^ This objection was first started by the learned Abp. Eu- 
genlus, who has translated "the Georgics" into Greek; and 
ma)'^ be seen in a letter prefixed by M. Matthaei to his Greek 
Testament, Tom. XI. p. ix, — " haud plane consisteret, nisi cum 
*ctolentia qiiadam dictionis, et per solcecismum patentissimum. 
Cum etenim to 'irviv^A.a, nu) to v^oj^ y.a) to aiixa. nomina neuirius 
generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis quod iramediats 
proecedit; r^tTq ilaiv ol ixa^nv^^vTsc, et quod illico sequitur, y.ai 
hroi ol TfeTq X. T. \, — Sed nonne quaeso dictio naturalis hin et 

propria potius esset ; Tp»a elo-i ra. Liaprvftina, Iv tv) yriy to 'tdiivja.x, 
TO v^u^j y.oit TO al^^ta* hxI T« Tfia, ek to eh thtv ; At illud tamen CSt 

scriptum non hoc." 

S 



( 258 ) 

genuine text of Scripture. As the reading of those 
passages, however, admits of more than a negative 
defence; I proceed to examine how far this testi- 
mony of the Eastern and Western Churches is con- 
firmed by the internal evidence of the original. An 
admirable rule is laiddown by M. Griesbach*'* for 
determining, between two readings, which is the 
genuine : I am wholly mistaken, or it may be shewn, 
that every mark of authenticity, which he has point- 
ed out, will be found to exist in those readings which 
he has rejected as spurious. 

Directing our attention, in the first place, to the 
-structure of the phrase, the tenour of the sense and 
language as fully declares for the received reading, 
as against the corrected. 

1. In Act. XX. 28. the apostolical phrase, UxXnaix 
T» 0e5, is not only preserved, but its full force con- 
sequently assigned to the epithet Wa. This term, 
as used by the apostle, has an exclusive and empha- 
tical force; an exclusive, in limiting the sense to 
'' God," the subject of the assertion; — an empha- 
tical, in evincing the apostle's earnestness, in using 
so extraordinary an expression. ' Peed the Church 
of God, which he purchased with no other blood 

'^■^ Griesb. Proleg. Sect. III. p. lix. Insita sua bonitate 
commendatur lectio, quae vel auctoris cogitandi sentiendique 
modo, Ktylo, scopo, ca^terisque wsptraa-io-* sive exegeticis, ut 
conte?Ltui, adjunctis, oppositis, &c. sive historicis omnium con- 
venientissima, vel ita comparata est, ut ea, velut primitiva, 
posita facile iritelligi queat, quomodo caeterae lectiones omnes — 
sive librariorum errore — aut criticorum inepta sedulitate, pro- 
genitae ex ilia fuerint. 



( 259 ) 

than his own/ is the literal meaning of the 
phrase '5^; and this meaning is not more clearly 
expressed^ than we shall see it was required by the 
object of the apostle^ in writing. 

2. In 1 Tim. iii. 16. there can be little doubt that 
the " Great Mystery/' of which the apostle speaks, 
and that whereby some one '' was manifested in the 
flesh," must be the Incarnation. If we take the ac- 
count given of this '' mystery'* in John i. 1. 14. it 
marks out '' God" as the divine person who " was 
manifested/* And, putting this term into the letter 
of the text, it renders the apostle's explanation an- 
swerable to his purpose, and to the solemn mode of 
his enunciation. For, as the manifestation of no 
person, but the incomprehensible and divine, can 
be a mystery, any " manifestation" of '' God/' as 
^' in the flesh," must be a " Great Mystery" '^^. 
So far, the apostle's phrase is as just as it is sen- 
tentious. 

?. In 1 John v. 7. the manifest rent in the Cor-, 
rected Text, which appears from the solecism in 

'«>' It was not merely possible, but it was only probable, that 
" God** would " purchase the Church" with other " blood" 
than " his oivn :" but it was wholly inconceivable, that our 
* Lord* could have purchased it with any other " blood," but 
** his own." On the possibility implied in the former consi- 
deration rests the propriety of using '/^»05 ; which differs from 
avToCf in having that exclusive force which is solely implied in 
the antecedent of those different considerations. 

_^^^ S. Iren. adv. Hser. Lib. III. cap. xvi. § 6. p. 206 et 

kominem ergo [Dominus noster] in semetipsum recapitulans est, 
mvisibilis visibilis factus, et incornpreltemibilis f actus compreheri' 
iibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Verbum homo/* &c. 

s2 



( 260 ) 

tlic language, is filled up in the Received Text; 
and nxT)io Kx\ Aoyo;y being inserted^ the mascu- 
line adjectives^ r^ug ol (Ax^Tvphngy are ascribed suit- 
able substantives; and^ by the figure attraction, 
which is so prevalent in Greeks every objection is 
removed to the structure of the context. Nor is 
there thus a necessary emendation made in the apos- 
tle's language ialone, but in his meaning. St. John 
is here expressly summing up the divine and human 
testimony, '^ the witness of God and man '9^;" and 
he has else^vherc formally enumerated the heavenly 
witnesses, as they occur inr the disputed passage. 
In his Gospel be thus explicitly declares, '' I am 
one that bear witness of myself, and the Father 
that sent me beareth icilness of me : and when the 
Comforter is come^ even the Spirit of truth, he shall 
testify of me ^^^." And yet, in his Epistle, where 
he is expressly summing up the testimony in favour 
of Jesus, we are given to understand, that he passes 
at least tv»'o of these heavenly witnesses by, to insist 
on three earthly ; which Imve brought the suppress- 
ed witnesses to the remembrance of almost every 
other person, who has read the passage, for the last 
sixteen centuries'. Nay more, he omits them in 
such a manner as to create a gross solecism in his 
language, which is ultimately removed by the ac- 
cidental insertion, as we are taught, of those wit* 
nesses, from a note in his margin. Nor is this all; 
but this solecism is corrected, and the oversi^-ht of 

*5' 1 Job. V. 9. * 

»'5 Job. via. 18. xv. 26. 



( 261 ) 

the Apostle remedied^ by the accidental insertion of 
the disputed passage^ from the margin of a iranS' 
lation : the sense of which^ we are told, it embar- 
rasses,, while it contributes nothing- to amend the 
grammatical structure '^"^l Of all the omissions 
which have been mentioned respecting this verse^ 
I call upon the impugners of its authenticity to spe> 
cify one, half so extraordinary as the present ? Of 
all the improbabilities wliich the controversy re- 
specting it has assumed as true, I challenge the 
upholders of the Corrected Text, to name one, 
which is not admissible as truth, when set in com- 
petition with so flagrant an improbability as the last. 
Yet, on the assumption of this extravagant impro- 
bability, as matter of fact, must every attack, on the 
authenticity of this verse, be built, as its very foun- 
dation ! 

Prom viewing the internal evidence of the dis- 
puted texts, let us next consider the circumstances 
under which they were delivered ; and here, I am 
wliolly deceived, or the investigation will lead to the 
ultimate establishment of the same conclusion. 

It is of the last importance in deciding the pre- 
sent question, to ascertain the subject which was 
before the apostles, in delivering themselves on the 
occasion before us. Some light arises to direct us 

^^^ Though the reading of the Greek Vulgate, r^cIV eiVtv ol 
fta^Tt/pSi'Tcf, TO Ti'jivy.'x. ^ TO voojq^ v^ to ou^a., is not to be tole- 
rated ; the reading of the Latin Vulgate, (from whence it is 
asserted 1 Joh. v. 7. has crept into the Greek texty) is grammati- 
cally correct; <' tr^s sunt qui testimonium dant, spirliusy aqua^ 
.Qt sanguis,^* 



( 263 ) 

in this enquiry, from the consideration, that the 
words of both apostles were addressed to the Church 
at Ephesus; in which the Gnostick heresy had 
made some progress before the close of St. John's 
ministry. With respect to St. Paul, the point is 
directly apparent. Acts xx. 28. occurs in the ex- 
hortation delivered to the bishops and presbyters 
assembled in that city*°°: and 1 Tim. iii. 16. occurs 
in the Epistle addressed to Timothy, who was resi- 
dent in the same place *°', and was, for some time 
subsequent, bishop of Ephesus****. With respect 
to St. John, the matter before us is not involved in 
greater difficulty. His Epistle was written towards 
the elose of his life, which was ended at Ephe- 
sus ***' ; in which city he had an interview with Ce- 
rinthus, the leader of the Gnostick heresy "^, against 
whom it was partly directed "5. 

It is further deserving of remark, that both apos- 
tles are expressly engaged on the subject of those 
early heresies, with which the Church of Ephesus 
was menaced, if not infected. With regard to St, 
Paul, the context of the passages before us puts the 
matter out of dispute. '' Feed the Church of God,'* 



*°° Comp. Act. XX. 17. 28. 

"'^ Vid. 1 Tim. i. 3. 

^°* Vid. supr. p. 113. n. 9. 

^^ Vid.supr.p. 231.n. ''". 

*°* S. Iren. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 177. Ka* jtV;\ o» uanHoom 

K. T. £, 

^•5 Vid. supr. p, 243. n. *". 



( 263 ) 

he declares to the Ephesian pastors, '' which he has 
purchased with his own blood. For / know this, 
that after my departing, shall grievous loolves enter 
in among you, not sparing- the flock. Also of your 
own selves shall men arise speaking perverse 
things, to draw away disciples after them'^''^/* 
To the same purpose he delivers himself in his 
Epistle to Timothy; '' And without controversy 
great is the Mystery of Godliness ; God was mani- 
fested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit^ seen of 
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in 
the world, received up into glory. Now the Spirit 
speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some 
shall depart from the faith, giving- heed to sedu- 
cing spirits, and doctrines of devils '•°\" The 
early tradition of the Church *°^ confirmed by the 
internal evidence of St. John's Epistle, fully justi- 
fies our forming a like conclusion with respect to it, 
and the Epistle to Timothy, to which it appears to 
allude. '' Little children,'^ declares the Evange- 
hst, '' it is the last time, and as ye have heard, that 
Antichrist shall come, even now are there many anti- 
christs. They went out from us, but they were not 

^ Act. XX. 28, 29, 30. 

*°^ 1 Tim. iii. 16. iv. 1. 

*^^ S. Hieron. in Mat. Prooem. ad Eus. Crem. Tom. VI. p. xi. 
Ultimus Joannes apostolus et evangelista— cum esset in Asia, 
et jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent, Cerinti, Ehionisy 
et ccBterorum, qui negant Christum in carve venisse : quos et ipse 
tn Epistola sua Antichristos vocat, et apostolus Paulus frcguenf 
ier percutit; coactus est ab omnibus paene tunc Asiae episcopis, 
et multorum legationibus, de Divinitate Salvatoris altius sen- 
iere, &c. 



i 264 ) 

of us. — Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus 
is the Christ. He is antichrist that denieth the Fa- 
ther a7id the Son. — Beloved, believe not every 
spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God : 
because many false prophets are gone out into the 
ivorld. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : every 
Spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ is come in thejiesh 
is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that 
Jesus Christ is come in thejiesh is not of God : and 
this is that spirit of Antichrist. — Whosoever shall 
confess that Jesus is the Son of Godj God dwelleth 
in him, and he in God^°9/' 

In order to determine the question before us, it is 
still necessary that we should acquire a precise 
knowledge of the fundamental tenets of those here- 
ticks, whom the apostles opposed. St. John has 
very expressly declared, that they '' denied the 
Father and the Son ;" having disputed that *^' Jesus 
was the Son of God," and that '' he was come in 
the flesh." With this representation, exactly ac- 
cords the account which we receive of the tenets of 
the Nicoiaitans and Cerinthians ; those hereticks 
whom the apostles expressly opposed*'''. They 
■' denied the Father,'' not merely disputing* his pa- 
ternity, in denying his only -begotten Son^''^ but 



'"^ 1 Job. ii. 18, 19, Si2. iv. 1, 2, S. 15. 

'-••° Vid. supr. p. 243. n. '^^ p. 263. n. *"^8. 

"" S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 188. — *' Joannes 
Domini discipulus, volens per Evangelii annunciationem auferre 
eum qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat bominibus, crrorem, et 
multo prius ab bis qui dicuntur Nicolaitcc, — ut confunueret eos, 
et suaderet, quoniam unus Deus qui omnia fecit per Verbuni 



( 263 ) 

representing him as a being who was removed from 
the care and consideration of earthly things ; who 
had permitted the creation of the world hy beings 
of an inferiour and angelical nature^ and had con- 
signed it to their superintendence*'*. They ''^de- 
nied the Son/' as disallowing his eternal filia- 
tion *''^ and degrading him into the order of secon- 
dary and angelical existences ''^ Thus far the 

suum ; et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum qmdem 
Jhbricatorem, alium aittem Patrem Domini; et alium qiiidem 
Jabricatoris Filiiim, alterum vero de suijerioribus Christum,'* 

&c, 

^'^ Id. ibid. Lib. I. cap. xxvi. p. 105. ** Et Cerlnthus autem 
quidem-in Asia, 7ioii a primo Deo Jactiim esse mundum docuit, 
sed a Virtute quadem valde separata et distante ab ea Princi- 
palitate, qua) est super universa, et ignorante eum qui est 
super omnia Deum," Conf. supr, n. ^". S. Epiphan. Ha:r. 
XXVIII. p. 110. c. 

*'^ Vid. supr. n. ^". 

^'* S. Iren. ibid. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 18S. — quemadmodum illi 
dicunt — initium quidem esseMonogeni: Logon autem vcrumfilium 
Unigeniti." On the former passage the incomparable Bp. Bull 
observes, Defens. Fid. Nicsen. Sect. IIL cap. i. § 8. p. 160. ed. 
Lond. 1721. "Denique utrique [Cerinthiani et Valentiniani] 'pe- 
rinde tS Adyn ccternltalem negarunt. — De Cerinthianis diserte hie 
testatur, quod initium tribuerunt ipsi Monogeni, quern Logi patrem 
dixerunt." The learned Benedictine P-Massuet formed the same 
conclusion, from a comparative view of the passages relative to 
those antienthereticks ; Dissert. Pra^v. in S. Iren. p. Ixv. ^ 127. 
** Eadem fere Cerinthi, qua2 Simonis Menandri, et aliorum 
Gnosticorum somnia fuere," Id. ibid. p. Ixvii. § 133. " Dog- 
mata NicoIaUarum theoretica recensere supervacaneum duxit 
Irena^us : eadem quippe fuisse quae cd'terormn Cxnosticorum per- 
epicue innuit, Lib. III. cap. xi." Id. ibid. p. xxxix. *« Logos 
proinde Angelus erat, qui Dei mentis veluti verbum ac interpres 



( 266 ) 

Nicolaitans and Cerinthians agreed. They agreed 
also in '' denying that Jesus was the Christ;'' 
though they maintained this doctrine under different 
modifications. The Cerinthians, dividing the per- 
son of Jesus Christ, considered Jesus a mere vian, 
born in the natural manner from Joseph and 
Mary*'^; but mystically united with the angelical 
being Christ, wlio descended upon him at the time 
of his baptism *'^. This, union, they conceived, was 
dissolved at the time of the crucifixion; the man 
Jesus having suffered on the cross, while the impas- 
sible Christ ascended into the heavens ^'^. The 
Nicolaitans " denying that Jesus loas come in the 
j^es/i,'* considered Jesus Christ a mere phantasm, 
having a form which resembled flesh, but which 
consisted of an ethereal essence **^ At the time of 

oracula divlna caeteris pandebat, ac per eos, per Salvatorem 
maxime, hominibus manifestari curabat.'* Conf. ibid. p. Iv. J 
100. S. Iren. Lib. I. cap. ii. p. 13. n. e. 

*" S. Iren. ibid. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 188. *' Jesum autem 
subjecit [Cerinthus] non ex virgine natum ; impossibile enim 
hoc ei visum est : Juisse autem eum Josephi et Marict jilium^ 
similiter nt reliqui omnes homities,'* Conf. S. Epiphan. Haer. 
XXVIII. p. 110. 

**^ S. Iren. ibid. " Et post baptismum descendisse in eum 
ab ea Principalitate quae est super omnia Christum, figura co- 
lumbae.*' — Conf. S. Epiplian. ibid. 

^^^ S. Iren. ibid. "In fine autem revolasse iteriim Christum 
de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse, et resiirrexisse: Christum autem 
impassibilem perseverasse, existentem spiritalera." 

*^^ Of the tenets of the Nicolaitans we have no specifick ac- 
count, as this heresy was soon lost, and involved in the great 
sect of the Gnosticks ; vid. supr. p. 265. n. ^'*. Conf. S. Epi- 
phan. Haer. xxv. p. 77. a. We may therefore take our notions 



( 267 ) 
the crucifixion, they held, that he secretly with- 
drew himself, while Simon the Cyrenean suffered 
in his likeness *'^ 

While these hereticks thus denied the Divinity, 
and rendered void the Incarnation and Redemption 
of Christ, they seemed not to have erred so grossly 
on the doctrine of the Trinity. As they were re- 
spectively descended from the Jews"°, though their 
notions were warped by the peculiar opinions of 
Simon Magus"*, they must have derived from both 

of their opinions from the Saturnilians and Basilidians, who 
were among the earliest sects of the Gnosticks, and, like 
the Nicolaitans, arose at Antioch ; conf. Act. vi. 5. S. Iren. 
Lib. I. cap. xxvi. § 3. p. 105. cap. xxiv. § 1. p. lOQ. Respect- 
ing the putative body of Christ, from asserting which, they re- 
ceived the name of Docetae, they held the following notions, 
S. Iren. ibid. § 4. p. 101. '* Innatum autem et innominatum 
Patrem. — misisse primogenitum Nun suum, (et hunc esse qui 
dicitur Christus,) in libertatem credentium ei, a potestate eorum 
qui mundum fabricaverunt. Et gentibus ipsorum autem appa^ 
ruisse eum in terra hornmem^ et virtutes perfecisse." 

S. Iren. ibid. " Quapropter neque passum eum [Chris- 
tum], sed Simonem quemdam CyrencBum angariatum portasse 
crucem ejus, pro eo : et hum secundum ignorantiam et errorem 
cruclfixiimy transfigurahim ah eo, uti putaretur ipse esse Jesus : 
et ipsum autem Jesum Simonis accepisse formam, et stantein 
irrisisse eos," 

""^ S. Epiphan. Haer. xxv. p. 76. b. l<[iy(.oXo^Qs yiyoviv sT? iw» 

ylvcToci, Id. Indie, in tom. ii. lib. i. p. 53. c. Kvp^vBiccol of «} 

al'^trt^. •/.. T. I. 

"' S. Iren. ibid. Lib. I. cap. xxiii. § % p. 99. " Simon 
autem Samaritanus, ex quo universce hcereses substiterunt, habet 
hujusmodi sectac materiam." Id. ibid. Prsef. in Lib. II. J L 



( 268 ) 

sources some knowledge of this mystick doctrine"*. 
Hence it is of importance to observe^ that the Jews 

p. 115. " Diximus quoque multitudinem eormn qui sunt ah eo 
Gnostici, et differentias norum, et dcctrinas, et successiones 
adnotavimus ; quaeque ab eis ha^reses institutae sunt, omnes ex- 
posuimus. Et quoniam omnes a Simone hceretici initia siimentes 
iinpia et irreligiosa dogmata induxerunt in hanc vitam, osten- 
dimus. 

"* The whole of the early heresies may be divided into twcy 
great sects, which were respectively descended from the Jews 
and Magians ; Vid. Pears. Vind. Ignat. P. II. cap. v. p. 359. 
From both sources, these different sects must have inherited a 
knowledge of the Trinity. Aliix, Judgm. of Jew. Church ag. 
Unitar. ch. i. p. 6. " I shall prove clearly, that the Jetvs before 
Christ's tirae, according to the received exposition of the Old 
Testament derived from their fathers, had a notion of a plura' 
lity qfperso7is in the unit}' of the Divine Essence ; and that thU 
2)luraUtij uasa Trinity." Comp. ch. x. pp. 138. 147, 148. 154. 
&c. Pletho Schol. in Orac. JMag. sub fin. <i>rta) ^\ trtfi Zupoarps 

TJKarccp^o; w? Tpp(,'/3 t« oi/r» etEAot* zcci rvt fj^Bv TT^ujTr) ctvTuv /zotpx 
^€lcou.a.t,r,v I'^iTvy' tStov o\ thoci tov vTro Tuv Xoy'iuv Yiccricoc y.otT^suivav'' 
TYi Qi zax'^Tft 'ApiixccvTji' Mi^p'/)v ^i ryj (xscry' >^ tStov (5'' uv e'ivan 
rov hvTifov N2v y.a.7'>iiyLivov Itto ruv T^cyiaiv' n. t. e. This aCCOUnt is 

confirmed by the Zendavesta, v/hicli is preserved by the Per- 
sees ; who still profess the religion of Zoroaster, and assert that 
they retain his sacred books : M. Anquet. du Perron, Zendavest. 
Tom. II. Precis Raisonnce du Syst. Theol. des Pers. p. 592. 
*' Ormiisd et AhrimaUf Principes secondaires, actifs et produc- 
teurs ; le premier bon par son essence, et source de tout bien ; 
le seconde corrompu et auteur de tout niai," &c. Id. ibid. p. 
609. d. — c'est Mithra, le genie qui preside a la fertilite de la 
terre, PIzed de la bienveiliance, Pennemi de la Couleuvre qui 
eeme I'envie et la mort ; c'est lui qui est charge de faire naitre 
et de entretenir cette harmonic entre les diffcrentes parties du 
Genre-humain.'* In a word, this doctrine was professed by 
Simon Magus, from whom it descended to the different sects 
of hereticks; vid. supr. p. 267. n. "'. S. Iren. adv. Ha?r. Lib. 



( 269 ) 

expressed their belief in this doctrine, in the iden- 
tical terms, which occur in the suspected passage , • 
^' and the three are one^*^'' It is likewise observ- 
able, that as these notions had descended to the 
hereticks; the Nicolaitans, in particular, expressed 

J. cap. xxiii. ^ 1. p. 99. *' Hie [Simon] a multis quasi deus 
glorificatus est, et dociiit semetipsum esse qui inter Judaeos qui- 
dem quasi Filius adparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi Pater 
descenderit, et in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiiitus Sanctus 
adventaverit." Conf. S. Hier. Comment, in Matt. xxiv. Tom. 
Vr. p. 52. f. 

*^^ That the term Aoyo?, adopted by St. John in the passage 
before us, had been previously used by the Jews in the deter- 
minate sense of '» t^^DD, the Word of God, as distinct from 
the speech of God, is placed beyond a doubt by Rittangelius, 
Lib. Jezir. p. 81. sqq. ed Amst. 1642. In this work, which is 
ascribed to Abraham, by the Jews, and is confessedly the oldest 
of their Cabalistick works, we meet, Ibid, Sect. iii. p. 207. 
nn« ii^Vtr, " the three are 07ie." And in the same work, a long 
extract is inserted from Rabi Schabte, wherein he explains the 
mystery of the Three Sephiroth, in the divine * Nature,' which 
turns on the same phrase ; Id. ibid. p. 63. iDi — njni >nntr^ 'i. 
*' Rabi Shabte dicit : Et ecce nobis perspicuum est id quod 
explicavimus in capitibus superioribus, Mysterium nempe, quod 
dixerint Sapientes Cabalee seu Theologian, T7'es primarias, quae; 
sunt Corona Summa, Sapientia, Intelligentia, in. a:quali dignitate 
quasi sumrae Vnum quid esse.*' In the preceding page, the 
same phrase is ascribed to Rabi Simeon, ibid. p. 64. — 
nn« in'« «ti jnn« nl>n, " tres sunt unitates et ecce umim 
zunt,"* The very form of appeal to the witnesses in St. John, 
is adopted from the same source ; the book Zohar observes, in 
referring to the repetition of the letter Jod, in Is. xliv. 6. Id. ib. 
p. 57. 131 pTi^D ]m» n^n, " Tria Jod testimonium perhibeni 
dc 60, quod non sit supra prseter eum, nee infra proeter eura,*' 
S:c. Comp. Allix. ub. su.pr. cap. xi. p. 160. sqq. Maur, Orient. 
Tiin. p. 199. ?qq. 



( 270 ) 
the same belief in similar language **^ And the 

^^ S. Epiphan. Haer. xxv. p. 78. c. uXMi ^\ tov yLOLvXoiv%oiv% 
Itau-jTui ^o|a^acrn', "A^xovra Tiva t«tov ^jtw xaXavTer. S. Epi- 
phanius having made this declaration relative to the term 
x.(iv'Kocv%av%y gives the following derivation of this term, which 
is whollj irreconcilable with the above declaration ; Id. ibid. 
p. 78. a. a^^a xa* in^) T» y.a.v'kav'/jxvy^y ri? rm yivcjo-Konuv » 
xuraytXoiasiiVy oVt ra^ 'E^pai'r* xa?vw? il^-n^ivoc^ ^e'let?} >J; EX^ijvJf* 
xaXw? lo^ijvEySsiyag, «^ vt/v vrapa Tor? EX^»3>»r» avayivo/crxso'* (^xn^cc 

T«? otl(7^^»g oivruv t^ fAvBu^aq Te^vriq vvoff9roc(x,». }LocvXav^oiv% yetf 
It Tat Haoiiot yiy^wifloci^ ?»./^»? rij kax \v rjj ^w^sxarrj ofocatiy e'vSa 
?i£7£f — ytav'Kay.uvy. y.(x,v\a.y.ciy., i.'K'Tr)q vie \7^ir';\, PetaviuS, not. in 

b. I. Tom. II. p. 44. and Feverdantius not. in S. Iren. Lib. I. 
cap. xxiii. p. 72. refer here to Isiah xxviii. 10. Tp^ "Jp lp^ "ip, 
which is rendered in our Authorised Version, '* line upon line, 
line upon line ;" which phrase, of course, leaves very little 
meaning in the etymology of St. Epiphanius. As this antient 
father applies the term to a Principle of the Nicolaitans, S. Ire- 
nseus, Lib. I. cap. xxiv. p. 102. ascribes it to an JEon, and 
Theodoret to a Person ; Haer. Fab. Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 195. d. 
which different representations are perfectly reconcilable among 
themselves, though wholly irreconcilable with the St. Ej^ipha- 
nius's derivation. The 'Ap^i^^, 'A\uiv, and S6;t^^, Avith which 
K.a.vKci,vyjxvx is identified in these explanations, were considered 
Angelical Existences : vid. Massuet. Dissert. Praev. in Iren. p. 
xxxviii. § 60. The term Caulauchau must be understood with 
reference to the Pleroma of the Gnosticks ; a term by which 
those hereticks designated the Divine nature ; vid. Massuet, 
Dissert. Prasv. in Iren. § V2, p. xvii : the Orientalists having 
rejected the notion of a vacuum, and conceived that all things 
were God ; who produced the visible and invisible worlds by 
irradiations or protrusions of his essence. See Burnet. Archaeol. 
Philos. Lib. I. cap. vii. p. 89. Lond. 1728. Comp. Yajur 
Veda in Asiat. Research. Vol. VII. p. 251. and Maur. Orient. 
Trin. pp. c537. 388. We thus find the name Caulaucau applied 
to the iEon, in whose form the second Christ, or the Saviour. 



>( 271 ) 

Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Ebio- 

descended ; S. Iren. ib. cap. xxiii*. § 5. p. 102. Quemadmo- 
dum et mundus [1. mundi] nomen (^sse) in quo dicunt descent 
disse et ascendisse Salvatorem, esse Caulacau, Igitur qui haec 
didicerit, et omnes angelos cognoverit, et causas eorum, invisi- 
bilem et incomprehensibilem eum angelis et potestatibus oni- 
vcrsis fieri, quemadmodum et Caulaucau Jkisse.''* The applica- 
tion of this term to the Saviour, or second Christ, is thus ex- 
plained by S. Irenaeus, Ibid. Lib. III. cap. xvi. § 1. p. 204-. 
** Qui autem a Valentino sunt [dicunt] Jesum — ipsum esse qui 
per Mariam transient, in quem, illiimy de Superiori, Sahatore'/n 
descendisse, quem et Christum dici, quoniam omnium qui emi^ 
sissent eum, haberet vocabula : participasse autem cum eo, qui 
esset ex dispositione — ut cognosceretur Pater, 'per eum Salva- 
tor em quidem qui desuper descendisset, quem et ipsum recepta- 
ciduyn Christi, et imiversce Plenitudinis esse dicunt, lingua quldenj 
uniim Christum Jesum confitentes, divisi vero sententia." And 
on another occasion he describes this Personage as proceedinr^ 
or emanating from the Father, the Christ, and Spirit, and the 
whole Angelical host, by an union and congregation of their 
several perfections and virtues ; adding. Ibid. Lib. I. cap. ii. 

§ 6. p. 12. 'i)ia. ty.a^ov rut Al&ituvj otts^ s'^X^" iv la.vtZ ;<aAAfroi' k, 
Mt^ripoToiTov <rvnvBy/.aiJi,svH^ — Trpo^oiXicr^ui — otrfiov ra IlAjjpuaTOf, 
TsXikov KUpTTov ro» 'l>ja£y, tvxccl ^corrjocc TT^Qaacyo^sv^rivcci, jc, Xp/foi 
xj Aoyov vul^uvvi/A-K^c, 5(J Tldyrac, ^loc ro uTio Tiavrcov slvoci. The 
following quotation will now explain how the term Caulachaud 
has been applied to this Saviour, " the one Christ, who was 
the receptacle of the Divine Plenitude; who was called All 
things, because he was from all;" Zohar. P. I. fol. 31. 2 in 
Beresith. ed Mant. iDi— »j^n 'Di» l«. « Dixit Rabbi Jose, quis 
sensus illius; " Cui sunt Dii seu Elohim propinqid?'* Potius 
dicendum videtur projnnquus quam propinqui. Se6. est Deus 
Supremus, Deus timoris Isaac, Dcus postremus. Sic propinqui 
dicendum. Lt Fortitudines seu Majestates aut Potetitice sunt 
midtce quce procedunt ex Una. Et hi omnes Unum sunt,** 
The last cited words, " hi omnes unum sunt," expressed in the 
original by in in"?:, clearly contain the true exposition of the 



( 272 ) 

nites"^ if not by the Cerinthians, both of which 
sects were opposed by St. John "^, not only retained 
the same doctrine, but inculcated it in the terms 
which were used by the Jews**^ It is therefore 

Gnostick KATAATX"ATA, as this word should be properly 
written; the final A, which was omitted by St. Epiphanius to 
make way for his etymology, being preserved in a MS. of St, 
Irenaeus, quoted by the Benedictine editours, which, adding 
*' deus" to " calaucu," probably read caulaucuiTs, for 

CAULAUCAUD. 

*^^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. HI. cap. xxvii, Eya/yfiXi&j ^g y.oyuf 

sTToitivIo "Koyov, Conf. S. Hier. Comment, on Matt. cap. xii. 
Tom. VI. p. 21. b. 

**^ Tertul. PrjEScr. adv. Haer. cap. xxxiii. p. 210. " At in 
Episfola eos maxime Antichristos vocat [Johannes], qui Chris' 
ium negarcnt in came venisse, et qui non putarent Jesum esse 
Filium Dei : illud Marcion, hoc Hehiori 'cindicamt, — Hsec sunt 
lit arbitror genera doctrinarum adulterarum, quce sub apostolis 
Jicisse, ah ipsis Apostolis discimus, Conf. supr. p. 24-3. n. ^*^°. 
p. 263. n. ^°l 

"^ From the following passage it appears, the doctrine of 
the Trinity was inculcated in the Hebrew Gospel ; S. Hier, 
Comment, in Ezech. cap. xvi. Tom. IV. p. 371. h. — *' et refer- 
l.ur ad Spiritum Sanctum, qui apud Hebraios appellatur genere 
fcLunineo mi. In Evangello quoque Hehrccorum, quod lectitant 
Nazarsei, Salvator inducitur loquens ; * Modo me arripuit 
Mater meciy Spiritus Sanctiis.'* On this passage Dr. Allix ob- 
serves; Judgm. of Jew. Church, p. 178. *' This passage of 
the Nazarenes' Gospel would never have been understood, if 
we had not known, that the Jems call the Holy Spirit Imma, 
Mother; as well as Binah, Understanding : as we see in Zohar 
and other Cabalists." Comp. p. 166. sqq. As it is certain, 
that Origen used the Hebrew Gospel, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccll. 
in Jacob. Tom. I. p. 119; the conformity of the following 
phrase to the above statement, as terming the Holy Ghost 
Krfi«, sufTicieritly declares, that this Gospel was the source 



( 273 ) 

indisputable, whatever becomes of the text of th6 
heavenly witnesses^ that the doctnne which it incul- 
cates was forcibly obtruded upon the attention of 
St. John, in the very words in which the suspected 
passage is expressed. 

From viewing the state of the subject, as before 
the apostles, let us now consider the manner in 
which they have discussed the points at issue be- 
tween them and the hereticks. The determination 
of this matter is decisive of the true reading of the 
contested passages. With respect to the hereticks 
who were opposed by St. Paul, as it has been al- 
ready observed, it was not only a fundamental arti- 
cle of their creed to deny the diviniti/ of the Logos, 
and to degrade him into the order of secondary and 
angelical existences; but a leading doctrine to deny 
that Christ became incarnate, and suffered, other- 
wise than in appearance, for the redemption of 
mankind. The opposition of these notions to the 
explicit declarations of St. Paul, in the contested 
verses, must be directly apparent; and they appo- 
sitely illustrate the strong emphasis with which the 
apostle insists on the Incarnation and Redemption^ 

from whence Orlgen adopted the passage ; Orlg. Selectt. in 
Ps. cxxii. Tom. II. p. 821. ^tAot ILvpluv Yla.r^os oCf ^ih ijvbv^oc 

T^U Kv^ioq 0£o? hu.uv lr»v, 01 joc^ T^eTf TO ev s'lmv. The lattet 
part of this phrase, which was unquestionably adopted from 
some heretical sect, who evidently borrowed it from the Jews, 
constitutes another evidence, that the subject of I Joh, v. 7. 
was before St. John when directing his Epistle against those 
heresies which arose while there was some connexion between 
Judaism and Christianity. Conf. Horn, in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 64. a. 

T 



( 274 ) 

in both passages : '' God/* he declares, '' was mani- 
fested in the flesh ;" and '' feed the church of God 
which he purchased with his own blood," But 
what is more immediately to our purpose, those he- 
retical tenets evince the obligation which was laid 
on the apostle to assert the divine nature of our 
Lord as strenuously as he asserted his human. 
This we observe to be as effectually done in the 
Received Text, where the term God is expressly 
introduced; as the contrary is observable in the 
Corrected, where that term is superseded by '' the 
Lord/' or '' he who was manifested/* Of conse- 
quence, the circumstances under which those verses 
were delivered as fully confirm the reading of the 
one, as they invalidate that of the other. The apos- 
tle expressly undertakes to warn the Church against 
those hereticks, whose errours he is employed in 
refuting. " Therefore watch" he declares to the 
Ephesian pastors, " and remember, that by the 
space of three years I ceased not to warn every one 
night and day with tears '^^^'* To Timothy he de- 
clares, '^ If thou put the brethren in remembrance 
of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of 
Jesus Christ." — " Take heed unto thyself subjoins 
the apostle, '^ and to thy doctrine; continue in 
them'-'''^" &c. But if we omit "God," with the 
Corrected Text, St. Paul is so far from delivering 
any warning on the subject of those hereticks, even 
while he expressly alludes to the doctrines which 



»'8 Act. XX. 31. 
^^ 1 Tim. iv. 6. 16. 



( 275 ) 
they had corrupted^ t^at he rather confirms their 
errours, by passing them over in silence. And this 
is the more inadmissible, as it is contrary to the 
usual practice of the apostle, who on similar occa- 
sions, when he was less imperatively called upon to 
deliver his sentiments, asserts the Divinity of our 
Lord in terms the most strong and explicit *^°. 

These conclusions are further supported by col- 
lateral evidence. St. Ignatius, an auditour of St, 
John, who impugned the errours of the Mcolaitans 
respecting the divinity of the Logos *^*, adopts the 
identical expressions of St. Paul, in an Epistle ad- 
dressed to the same church at Ephesus^^"-, and in- 

*^° S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. xvi. p. 204.— sed praevi- 
dens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores—per Matthaeum ait ; Christi 
autem generatio sic erat; et quoniam hie est Emmanuel, ne 
forte tantum eum hominem putaremus — neque alium quidem 
Jesum alterum Christum suspicaremus fuisse, sed U7ium et 
eundem sciremus esse. Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paulus, 
scribens ad Romanes, — " quod promisit — de Filio suo qui /actus 
est ei ex semine David, secundum carnem,^' Et iterum ad Ro- 
manos scribens de Israel, dicit ; " Quorum patres et ex quibus 
Christus secundum carnem qui est Detis super omnes benedictus 
in saecula." Et iterum in Epistola quae est ad Galatas, ait ; 
<* cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum^ 
factum ex muliere,^^ &c. Conf. Rom. i. 1. 3. ix. 5. Gal. iv. 4. 

*3' Vid. supr. p. 243. n. "'. 

*^' S. Ignat. Ep. ad Ejphes. cap. i. a»a{-;7r'j^^aa^Tf? ev ocifjLotn 

©e5, to ffvyymy.ov spyov rs>.iiu; ccTt'/i^Tisrari, cap. vii. eT? lar^aq £r»*i 
crapxixo? rt xa* w>£y/*aT»x.oc, ycmnoi kkI ayivvnroiy h au^xl yevoixnoj 
0805" cap. XIX. T^iflC f/,isr,si<x. y.fccvyy^qy ocrmoc Iv viav^io, ©£« iTT^a^^-n^ 

riw? h 6(f)ave£a;^73 Tor? aiZa^v, Tra-Aata ^ota-iXt'ux. ^teip^iifiro, 0e« 

a*^fu<rrUaq (pOLtie^iUJii-iiH lU xaivoTJjra «V^i« ^^5?^, app^y> Si ihfiy.^oiti» 
T© Tdfii ©sw awrpTfcr/AtKoy, pp. 12, 13. 16. 



( 276 ) 

sists on the divlniti/, incarnation, and passion of 
Christy in language the most full and explicit *^^ 
Had all antiquity been silent on the subject of these 
contested verses^ which are supported by the most 
full and unexceptionable evidence^ the single tes- 
timony of this apostolical father would determine 
the genuine reading beyond controversion. 

With respect to .1 John y, 7j, 8. it has been al- 
ready observed^ that it was directed against the 
peculiar errours of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians. 
Of those sects it has been likewise observed^, that 
they respectively denied that Jesus was '' the Son 
of God/* and " came in the flesh/' though they 
mutually expressed their belief in a Trinity. Suck 
are the fundamental errours which the apostle 
undertakes to refute ; while^ at the same time^ he 
inculcates a just notion of the Trinity; distinguish- 
ing the Persons from the substance, by opposing- 
Tf IK in the masculine to £«/ in the neuter *^^. 

*^^ Id. ibid, cap, Tli. El? \a,r^o<; Wtv, aa,^y.iKos rs y.ai 'nrvcVfxix- 

t,un aMSd/^j y.u) £>c Magtas" xat la ©£«^ tt^utov TraS'yjroy xai Tore 
cfZra^oQS-. Id. ib. cap. xviii. — ^"o yu^ &£o^ ri^uv ^lr,a^s o 'Kpi'^o^ 

XIvBv^aroi ol aym, os lyzMvn^'fi xocl s^KTrria^rij JVa ra 'jtu^h r» 
t^co^ Kcc^u^icrv), Kofi EAaSe rov ap^ovToc tS ulufoq Tara vj itu^inot, 
Mu^ia(;f Hal o Toxerof avrr)f, ouolu; y.al o B'avaros' t8 Kf§i8. 

^^* Two authorities, which are above all exception, will fally 
evince the justness and happiness of this distinction. Tertul. 
adv. Prax. cap. xxii. " Ego et Pater unum sumus.'* Hie 
ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti, immo cseci qui non videant, 
primo " Ego et Pater," duorum esse signification em ; dehinC' 
in novissimo, " sumus" non ex zinius esse j)ersona, quod j)lu-' 
ralitcr dictum est ; turn quod " imim sumu's," non unus sumus. 



( 277 ) 

Against those who denied that ^' Jesus was the 
Son of God/' he appeals to the heavenly witnesses; 
and against those who denied that he '' was come 
in the flesh/' he appeals to the earthly. For the 
admission of the one, that the ''three," including the 
Word, were '' one'' God, as clearly evinced the divi- 
nity of Christ, as identifying him with the Father ; 
as " the spirit" which he yielded up^^, and '' the 
blood and water" which he shed upon the cross *^'^, 
evinced his humanity, as proving him mortal. And 
this appeal to the witnesses is as obvious, as the 
argument deduced from it is decisive : those who 
abjured the Divinitij of our Lord, being as natu- 
rally confuted by the testimony of the heavenly 
witnesses, as those who denied his humanity by the 
testimony of the earthly. Viewed with reference 
to these considerations, the apostle's argument is as 
full and obvious, as it is clear and decisive : while 
it is illustrated by the circumstances under which 
his epistle was written. But let us suppose the 
seventh verse suppressed, and he not only neglects 
the advantage which was to be derived from the 
concession of his opponents, while he sums up ^'^the 
witness of men;" but the very end of his epistle ijs 

Si enim dixisset unus sumus, potuisset adjuvare sententiam 
illorum. Unus enim singularis numeri significatio videtur, ad- 
huc eum duo; mnscuUnl generis. " Unum" dicit, neutrafi 
verbo, quod non pertinet ad singularitem, sed ad imitatem, ad 
similitudinem, ad conjunctionem,*' Sec, In the justness of this 
distinction, an eminent Critick acquiesces: Vid. Pors, Lett. 
p. 240. 

^^5 Luk. xxiii. 46. 

^^^ Job. xix. 34, 35. 



( 278 ) 

frustrated^ as the main proposition is thus left un- 
established, that '' Jesus is the Son of God." And 
though the notions of the hereticks, on the doctrine 
of the Trinity, were vag'ue and unsettled, the Church 
was thus left without any warnings against their 
peculiar tenets, though the apostle wrote with the 
express view of countervailing* their errours. Not 
to insist on the circumstances of the controversy, 
the object of the apostle's writing, not less than the 
tenour of his sense, consequently require that the 
disputed passage should be considered an integral 
part of his text. 

The reader must be now left to determine how 
far the internal evidence, supported by the cir- 
cumstances of the controversy in which the sacred 
writers were engaged, may extend in establishing 
the authenticity of the disputed verses. As inter- 
polations, we must find it as difficult to account for 
their origin, by considering them the product of 
chance as design. For, assuming the reading of 
the Corrected Text to be genuine, is it not next to 
miraculous that the casual alteration introduced into 
the Received Text should produce so extraordinary 
an effect on each of the passages, and attended by 
consequences so various and remote; that it should 
amend the solecism of the language, supply the de- 
ec tive sense, and verify the historical circumstances 
under which they were written '^ But how is the 
improbability diminished by conceiving them the 
product of design ; while they appear to be unsuit- 
able to the controversies agitated in the primitive 
Church ? The early heretics did not subscribe to 



( 279 ) 

those parts of the canon in which they occur; and 
they did not meet the difficulties of those disputes 
which were maintained with the later *^7 In order 
to answer the purposes of those controversies, 
Christ, in two of the contested passages, should 
have been identified with '' God/' who '' was mani- 
fested in the flesh/' and '' purchased the Church 
with his own blood." And instead of " the Father, 
Word, and Spirit/' the remaining* passage should 
have read, '' the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/* 
Otherwise, the interpolated passages would have 
been direct concessions to the Gnosticks and Sabel- 
lians, who, in denying the personal difference of 
the Father and Son, were equally obnoxious to 
those avowed adversaries, the Catholicks and the 
Arians. Nor did the orthodox require tlfese verses 
for the support of their cause ; they had other pas- 
sages which would accomplish all that they could y 
effect ; and without their aid, they maintained and 
established their tenets. Admitting the possibility 

*^^ Hence we find, that the writers who stand next In suc- 
cession to the apostles, as they found the divinity of our Lord 
impugned, and the Scripture testimonies which proved it ex- 
plained away by the heretics, insist more emphatically on this 
point, vid. S. Ignat. ut supr. p. 276. n. ^n. To this early 
practice of perverting the language of Scripture, St. Polycarp, 
a contemporary of S. Ignatius, and auditour of St. John, bears 
witness, in the following apposite testimony, Ep. ad Philipp, 
cap. VH. p. 188. ria? yu^, oq uv poT] ofxoXoyPi 'Inasy Xpi^ov ev 
Cxp'Kl s\nXv%vxi, ccnixptrSg Iri- y.ccl o$ ^v ixs^o^sur) ra -Koyioi, ^5 

tkca*, aros w^wtotoko? hi Ta SaTaia. Couf. S. Iren. adv. Hser. 
Lib. I, cap. i. $ L p. 2, 



( 280 ) 

of an interpolation^ in the three instances, we must 
be still at a loss to conceive with what object it 
could have been attempted. 

On taking the reverse of the question, and suppos- 
ing the Byzantine text preserves the genuine read- 
ing, every difficulty in the subject under discussion 
admits of the easiest solution. The circumstances 
which induced Eusebius. of Csesarea, to suppress 
those passages, which apparently favoured the er- 
rours of the Sabellians, have been already specified. 
And the alterations which they underwent in his 
edition^ as contained in the Palestine text, were 
effected with as little violence as possible to the con- 
text or meaning. Kup/a, as a word nearly syno- 
nymous with 0£^, was inserted in Act. xx, 28*^^; 

*^^ That the term Kiptoq has thus crept into the text, has 
been determined by i^rof. Michaeljs, from the varieties disco- 
verable in the subjoined readings ; Marsh's Mich. Vol. I. ch. vi. 
§ xi[i. p. 336. *' Of the following different readings, Acts xx. 
28. 0t5, Kwfiy, Xpir'i^i Kvpia ©ss, ©aa k^ Kvple, Kvpia >^ QeS, 
the first is probably the true reading, and all the others are to 
be considered corrections or scholia, because ©£« might easily 
give occasion to any of these, whereas none could easily give 
occasion to ©£b. If St. Luke wrote ©et, the original of Kypa 
and XptrS may be explained as corrections of the text, or as 
marginal notes ; because " the blood of God" is a very extra- 
ordinary expression ; but if he had written Kvp'm, it is inconceivf 
able how any one could alter it to ©£«, and on this principle 
the great number of different readings is inexplicable. It seems 
as if different transcribers had found a difliculty in the passage, 
and that each corrected according to his own judgment.'* 
The improbability of such a correction is infinitely increased 
when we consider, that, if a change has been made from Kypla 
to ©£yj it must have been made early in the fourth century^ 



( 281 ) 

the Sabellian tendency of the passage was thus ob- 
viated^ and the harshness of the phrase^ which as- 
cribed blood to God, was removed. After the ana- 
log-y of a similar passage in Col. i. 26, 27. to 

fAvs-Ti^is r-dTis — eg Ifi Xoifog, 1 Tim. iii. 16. was chang- 
ed into fAiyoc if I fAVfYipio-^y og i(pxp£^u^n : o? being pre- 
served in the masculine to denote a person, and in 
this form agreeing with X^i^og, sylleptically impli- 
ed in 'fji.vfvoiou ^^9^ Out of this reading, [Mv^TiPm d 

when Sabellianism was in a great measure revived by Mar- 
cell us, of Ancyra. The revival of this heresy must have raised 
insuperable obstacles to prevent this text from being admitted 
into the context of Scripture by the orthodox : and unless it 
was interpolated by them, there was no party exi||ing at the 
time to gain it admission into the sacred canon. The Arians, 
it is obvious, cannot be accused of attempting such a correc- 
tion ; and the Sabellians were unable to effect any thing in this 
respect ; as they were an inconsiderable sect, rendered still less 
competent, by the opposition of both Arians and Catholicks. 

^■'^ This conjecture is supported by the Oriental versions, the 
varieties in which are at once reconciled, by considering the 
neuter noun f/.vryiftoy taken, b}^ a syllepsis, in the masculine / 
which notion is alone reconcilable with the reading proposed 
by M. Griesbach, in the Greek ; [ABycc er* to t^j? Bva-s^eiag 
fxvrr.cir.v, os i(p'Xvip'M^vi. Thls, I bcg leave to suggest, is the sim- 
plest explanation of the reading of the Coptick, Sahidick, and 
Philoxenian version ; and thus, M. Griesbach and Dr. Lau- 
rence, who have formed very opposite conclusions on this sub- 
ject, are easily reconciled in principle. The former declares, 
Nov. Test. not. in h. I. " Copt. Sahid. et Syr. p. in m. 
[exhibent] o?, qui;" the latter declares; Rem. on Griesb, 
Classif. of MSS. p. 78. " in both the Coptic and Sahidic the 
word MYZTHPION mystery is decidedly proved to be masculine, 
by the definitive article masculine ni in one case, and n in tha 



( 282 ) 
Ipxnau^r, naturally arose ^*% merely by correcting 

other, prefixed. — A similar remark, respecting the Philoxeniaii 
version, is made by its editour.'* From hence I would con- 
clude, with M. Griesbach, that the authours of those versions 
read in the Palestine edition, which they followed, /*ur>5pio» os 
i(panpu^ri : but I here reason from the premises laid before me, 
as I am wholly unacquainted with the Oriental languages. 

^"^ That fxvfripiov i(pa.vefcj^'n is not the original reading, is, I 
conceive, manifest ; as it is thus unaccountable that this phrase, 
which is wholly unexceptionable, should have been ever chang- 
ed to /xur'jpof OS i(pctvipu>^x. If, on the other hand, we suppose 
oq iCpavi^'l-Bv) the original reading, the change, it must be con- 
fessed, was easy both to o ^(pxn^cj^v) and Qeo? itpays^u^n : as th6 
neuter gender was obviously suggested by the context ^t;r«- 
Aiov ; and, in the uncial character, 02 is easily converted into 
©r, the usual abbreviation of 0EOr. But i^vtv^^iov os i(pa.vi^u^yi 
could not have been the original reading ; as unsuitable to the 
object of St. Paul in writing the Epistle before us. So great a 
solecism as I shall show in the sequel, finds no justification in 
Col. i. 27. And the change of o; to 0£oj, which is not at all 
suggested by the context, if at all made, must have been made 
in the fourth century ; when the Sabellian errours raised the 
same obstacles to such a correction, as to that of ©eS to Kypia 
in Act. XX. 28. If, in the last case, we suppose ©2 the ori- 
ginal reading, OS might have been first suggested by those 
transverse lines having been omitted, in the hurry of transcrip- 
tion, which distinguish OS and 02 ; and this alteration, which 
was apparently justified by Col. i. 27, might have been finally 
recommended, as the word 02 had, in this form, the appear- 
ance of an accidental omission ; and as it afforded a ready ex- 
pedient of converting 02 into 02, by an erasure. As the con- 
currence of the Eastern and Western versions proves this cor- 
rection to have been made as early as the fourth century, when 
the text was revised by Eusebius ; it is certainly a correction 
which he may be supposed to have made, as it is conformable 
to his peculiar notions. 



( 283 ) 

the false concord. 1 Joh. v. 7. presented fewer 
difficulties to the corrector; the iteration in the sen- 
tence made it merely necessary that the obnoxious 
passage should be erased ; and it was consequently 
expunged by Eusebius^ as little conducive to the 
doctrme of the church, from being calculated to 
support the Sabellian errours. Regarded in this 
view, there is little more on the subject before us 
which needs a solution. The last evidence of au- 
thenticity, which is specified in the rule proposed by 
M. Griesbach, for determining a genuine from a 
spurious reading ^''•^ is thus clearly made out in fa- 
vour of the text of Byzantium ; for thus all the vari- 
eties in the passages before us, are easily accounted 
for, on considering them corruptions of the genuine 
text, as preserved in that edition. 

Thus reasoning on the very grounds chosen by 
the adversaries of those texts, the question of their 
authenticity is easily decided; as far, at least, as 
respects the internal evidence. It is now merely 
necessary, that the testimony of competent witnesses 
should be adduced, to corroborate the internal evi- 
dence, with external. 

Of the manuscripts which have been cited on this 
subject, 1. the Vatican ^*% and fifteen of the Greek 

^' Vid. supr. p. 258. n. '^\ 

'** The true reading of this celebrated MS. is set out of dis- 
pute by the following document, which is deposited in Sion 
College ; to which my attention was first directed by my learned 
friend, Mr. Watts, the librarian. In a collation of the Vatican 
MSS. made for Dr. Berriman, when engaged in the defence of 
1 Tim. iii. 16. the annexed reading of the Vatican MS. appears; 



( 284 ) 

Vulgate *^^ read in Act. xx. 28. ©£« ; in which read- 
ing' they are supported by the manuscripts of the 
Latin Vulgate^ without a single exception *'^*. 
About fifty Greek manuscripts of the same edition 
also read Qeh, but in conjunction with Kvpia ^*^ 

the following note being prefixed to the papers in which it is 
found, in the hand writing of Dr. Berriman. " In the year 
1738 I obtained, from the very learned Mr. Thomas WagstaiFe, 
then at Rome, a more exact and particular account of the 
Greek MSS. of St. Paul's Epistles, in the Vatican library, 
and that of Cardinal Barberini, than had been ever before com- 
municated to the world. Mr. Wagstaffe had for some time free 
access to the Vatican, and the liberty of collating MSS. in the 
absence of the librarian, and in that time I was favoured with 
the accurate collation of four texts which I desired, (Act. xx. 
28. Rom. ix. 5. 1 Tim. iii. 16. and 1 John v. 7.) and of five 
more added thereto, (Gal. i. 12. Phil. ii. 6. Col. ii. 9. Tit. ii. 13. 
and 1 Job. v. 20.)'* The following collation of the disputed 
text is added, along with the above-cited, in Mr. WagstafFe's 

hand, ** Act. xx. 28. H^oai^ns. laVToTcf y.a,\ •jtu^t) ru Troifxnuif l» 
u vjjioiq TO -Trvivy.oe, to ccyiov I'^eTO e7rt<7xo9r«?, 7ro»^aiy£H> tvi» iKKXytaiacv 

Ta 3"e8, '^v TTEfU'TroiYtaa.To^ oicc tS uijxuToq t2 i^»8* MS. Bible, from 
whence Sixtus V.'s Septuagint was printed.'* And this testi- 
mony is confirmed by the collation which was made of this 
MS. for Dr. Bentley, vid. supr. p. 61. n. ^^ As it notes no 
various reading of this text but tb ai'/^aTo? t5 i^»«, p. 74. the 
MS. must have read, with the copy which was collated, IxxATjjriav 

TV QiH. 

2-*^ Griesb. Nov. Test, not, in h. 1. " Vulgatum GsS habent 
codd. 4, 22, 46j 65y 66, 68, et quantum e silentio collatorum 
suspicari licet, 7, 12, 16, 23, 25, 37, 39, 56, 64." For one of 
those MSS. Cod. 25, I can answer, having collated it in the 
British Museum, where it is marked Harl. 5537 ; it reads tIp 

ixy.Aj)5-Jav Ttf 0s2 nu Tre^is'JTOiyiaa.TO ha, tS l^m aif^aToc. 

'^ Mill. Nov. Test. not. in h. 1. " Vulg. in omnibus Codd. 
Lat. iEthiop." &c. * 

'^5 Vid. Griesb. Nov. Test, not, in h. 1. 



( 283 ) 

2. The Alexandrine *^^ and all known manu- 
scripts "-^^ except two of the Palestine, and one of 
the Eg-yptian edition, read in 1 Tim iii. 16. 0£o?; 
the Latin Vulgate reading- '' quod/' in opposition 
to every known manuscript but the Clermont *+^ 

^"^^ That the true reading of the Alexandrine MS. in 1 Tim. 
iii. 16. was 0eo?, not oj, we may appeal to the testimony of those 
who first examined the MS. Independent of that of Junius, 
who first examined it, and of Mr. Huish, Mho collated it for 
the London Polyglot ; of Bps. Walton and Fell, of Drs. Mill 
and Grabe, who have published its various readings ; Dr. Ber- 
riman's testimony seems to lay the question at rest. Having 
taken two friends^ Messrs. Ridley and Gibson, to examine the 
MS. in the sun, and with the assistance of a glass, and having 
submitted the point in debate to two indifferent persons stand- 
ing by, Messrs. Hewit and Pilkington ; he published the fol- 
lowing statement, as the result of their investigation; Dissert, 
ut supr. p. 156. " And therefore, if at any time hereafter, 
the old line should become indiscernible, there never will be 
just cause to doubt, but that the genuine ar.d original reading 
of this MS. was 0S i.e. ©E02." Nay more, he openly charges 
M. Wetstein, whose single testimony is now supposed to turn 
the scale against this host of witnesses, with having admitted to 
a common friend, that he satv the transverse line of the 0, the 
existence of which he afterwards disputed : Ibid. p. 156. The 
extreme futility of the plea, which is set up in opposition to this 
weight of testimory, vAW be exposed in the sequel. 

^^^ Dr. Berriman, Crit. Disert. up, 1 Tim. iii. 16. p. 163. 
specifies ninety-one MSS. in his printed text ; but in a manu- 
script note of a copy of his work, which was deposited in Sion 
College, extends the number to ninety-five. After the labours 
of Prof. Birch, of Copenhagen, of M. MattliSEri, at Moscow, and 
other criticks, we greatly underrate the number of those JMSS. 
in estimating them at an hundred. 

^•'^ Gricsb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 75. " Itaque extra 



( 286 ) 

3. The whole nearly of the manuscripts of the Latin 
Vulgate contain 1 Joh. v. 7^"^^; which is not found 
in any Greek MS. but the Montfort ; a manuscript 
which has been obviously corrected by the Latin 
translation. 

Of the christian fathers who have been quoted on 
this subject^ the following have been cited in fa- 
vour of the reading' of the Received Text^ or Greek 
Vulgate. 

I. On Act. XX. 28. St. Ignatius *^^ in the aposto- 
lical age; andTertullian*^*^ near the same period. 
At the distance of a century and upwards from those 
primitive times^ St. Athanasius ^^^ St. Basil *^^ St. 

omnem dubitatlonem positum jam esse videtur, Claromontani 
Codicis lectionem primitivam non fuisse 0S sed O.*' 

^^ Bengal. Apparat. Crit. not. in h. 1. § xix. *' Habet La- 
tina Versio antiquissima. * Versus ille solemniter legitur turn 
in Epistola Dominicae in Albis dictas, turn in octavo Respon- 
sorio, in omnibus Dominicis a festo SS. Trinitatis usque ad 
Adventum. Reperitur etiam in optimis quibusque et vetus- 
tissimis Vulgatae codicibus, ita ut paucissimi sint in quibus 
deest.' Henr. a Bukentop de Vulg. p. 307. Videlicet de 
Codicibus Hentenii, quorum circiter 24? ad banc epistolam col- 
lati sunt, 5 tantummodo omittunt. &c. 

*5° Vid. supr. p. 275. n. ^'^. 

"r Tertul. ad Uxor. Lib. IL cap. iii. p. 175. " Quod sciam, 
*' non sumus nostri" sed " pretio empti ;" et quali pretio? 
** sanguine Dei.*' 

*5* S. Athanas. Ep. i. ad Serap. Tom. IL p. 653. e. h ^l 

TlcX'VXoi' h CO vyi.oi,^ to YIvwiacc to ay»ov sSeto ETrJcrxoTras TTOJ/xaiveii/ rrjf 

*" S. Basil. Moral. Reg. lxxiii. cap. xvi. Tom. IL p. 285. 
a. ed. Par. 1618. o -^oii^m o xaAo? triv -vj/up^w. avre rlBncru) vne^ 
Tuv 'jT^o^a.Tuv. n§a|s»5. HfocrEp^ETE av layTcrj-— — 'Trot/AWkvim T'3» 
fXKMffiuv t5 ©£». 



( 287 ) 

Epiphanius *^^ St. Ambrose '^^ and St. Chrysos- 
tome ^^^ deliver the same testimony. In the follow- 
ing age occur Ibas*" and Ccelestinus*^%- and in the 
succeeding-, Fulgentius^^^ Ferrandus*^, and Pri- 

*5* S. Epiphan. Ilaer. lxxiv. p. 895. a. 9rpo j-e^ete tprjcrt eawoK, 

*" S. Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. Lib. II. cap. xiii. Tom. JI. col. 
663. d. " Dixit enim Paulus : ' Adtendite vobis, et omni gregi, 
in quo posuit vos Spiritus Sanctus episcopos regere ecclesiam 
Deu'* 

*5^ S. Chrysost. in Actt. Apostt. Horn. xliv. Tom. IX. p. 

333. a. U^offe^iTS fcv locvToT^ — Wo»jm,«(ve»» tvjv i>ix.>^Yjariav t« ©£», 
r,v Trepw/rQinaritro ^»a. t» lola a\'[jt,etro^.—~Ta.vrcx, ^.iyn tfx ETrstOH or* a» 
lat^Tor? TTfoa-sp^w/AEV, tote xJ to •Tro/jt^noi/ xEp^aiVE*, iv u vy,ct.% TO 'n-nvf/.oc 
to 'uyhQV i^'.ro lina-y.oiTHqy TrotfJiCcUfiv triv iKnT^rjaixv th ©£«. opcc Trocrat 
scycx.yy.cc\ ttx^cc tS 'TTvsvf/.ccToq rnv ^nforoviccv e'p^ete' (p'/jo-i* t«to ycip 
Irt TO, e'^eto* /L«t(Z uvTvi avayKr}' iWx iroi(A.aUnv 7t)v iKX^via-iccv 

Tb 0c8. 

»57 Ibas. Epist. ad Marin, Pers. rSnT^r^Bv ^l < o GsW' 5 

Traylole ^pj/li^wv T?? tiS'ia? ' tuxXT^aiaq t>}? tw Joio; ar/:>taTt' avrie 
Ai/l^w.^s/cnj?, >c^ TJ?!* y.ufoicti Ta 'AlyfTrl**} jj.izXci^xiy k. t. I. ap. Lab. 
et Cossart, Concill.Tom. IV. p. 665, b, ed. Par. 1671. 

*^^ Ccelest. Epist, ad Synod. Ephes, " Ptespiciamus rursum 
etiam ilia nostri verba doctoris, quibus proprie apud Episcopos 
utitur, ista praedicens ,' " Attendite" inquit, " vobis — regere 
ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit sanguine suo," Ap. Baluz. Nov, 
Collect. Concill. Tom. I. p. 491. 

^5> Fulgent, de Fid. ad Petr. Diac, cap. xix.—in isto autem 
sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis 

Christi, et sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus efFudit. 

De quo Beatus Paulus dicit in Actibus Apostolorum, ** Atten- 
dite vobis — regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit sanguine 
sue." Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. IX. p. 80. h, 

^^ Ferrand. ad Anatol. Epist. cap, xiv. " Nam ecce apud 
Miletum — Beatug dum traderet Paulus; " Attendite," inquitv 



( 288 ) 

masius*^'. In the next age we meet Antioclms *^*, 
and Martin I/^^• and in the subsequent, Bede*^^ 
who is followed,, after some distance of time, by 
Etherius^'^ (Ecumenius*'^ and Theophylact^'^ 

*' vobis — regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam adquisivit suo sanguine.'' 
Die modo Gentium Doctor, et responds nobis aliquid. — 
Dixisti Deum Ecclesiam adquisisse sanguine suo; quare non 
addidisti Filium,'' &c. Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. IX. p. 506. h. 

^^' Primas. in Apoc. cap. vii. I add this reference on the 
authority of M. Griesbach ; with this acknowledgement, that I 
believe it to be an errour. I have not been able to find any 
reference to Act. xx. 28. in Primasius, nor is the authority of 
this father cited, on this verse, by M. M. Bengel, or Sabatier. 
In Primas. ibid. ap. Max. Bibl. Patr. Tom. X. p. 309. b. I find 
" sanguine agni,'^ which, it is possible, M. Griesbach, or the 
person whom he followed, might have mistaken for " sanguine 
Dei.'* 

*^* Antioch. Horn, cxxii. Auctar. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. I. p. 

1214. e. ed Par. 1624. ror? ^\ ''^(piaiQiq "Kiyuv' ir^oa-t^ia^i euv7o7(; 
'—voijj.aivnv rrt» iKySKyicriccv T« 0c8. Conf. Hom. LXI. p. 

1122. d. 

^^^ Martin, in Cone. Later. Rom. — " et maxime praeceptum 
liabentes apostolicum, " attendere nosmetipsis, et gregi — 
regere Dei ecclesiam quam acquisivit per sanguinem pro- 

prium." — Id. ibid. [ji,a,Xircc 'TrxpsfyiXixv 'i^ovrti u'7ro^o?^iK7iVf TTfoo-E^siv 

7roi}jcra% hoi ra I^ia aI]!A«1o?. ap. Lab. et Cossart. Concill. Tom^ 
VLp. 93, 94. b. 

^^^ Bed. Comment, in Actt. Apostt. cap. xx. Oper. Tom. V. 
p. 659. ed. Col. Agr. 1612. — " Regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam 
acquisivit sanguine suo." Non dubitat " sanguinem Dei'* 
dicere, propter unionem personae in duabus naturis ejusdem Jesa 
Christi.'' 

^'^ Ether, contr, Elipand. Lib. 11. " De quo Dei sangufne 
sub certo Dei hominisque discrimine, in Apostolorum'Actibus 
legimus : " Attendite vobis, et universe gregi vestro, in quo 



( 289 ) 

To these we may add some anonymous authori- 
ties ***^ whose age is not easily determined. 

g. On 1 Tim. iii. 16. we may quote St. Ig-na- 
'tius*^^ in the apostolical age ; and Hippolytus *7^, 
in the age which succeeded. The next age pre- 
sents St. Athanasius'7'^ St. Gregory Nyssene*^*, 
andSt. Chrysostome*75; and the following age, St. 

vos Splritus Sanctus posuit apostolos regere Ecclesiam Deu^* 
Et cujus Dei Ecclesiam subsequens sermo demonstrat ita di- 
cens ; " quam acquisivit sanguine suo." Aperte hie nomine 
Deitatis et sanguinis, ccelestia et humana sociavit.'* Max. BibL 
Patrr. Tom. XIII. p. S83. d. 

*^^ (Ecumen. Comment, in Actt. Apostt. Tom. I. p. 152. ed. 
Par. 1634. Wfocr/p^elfi «v lavroTi Trot/xamiv t^v i>£itA)j<r/a»* 

T» ©£?. 

*^7 Theophyl. Oper. ed. Finett. Tom. III. p. 290. b. Venet, 

1758. wpoo-jp^/le «v ia.vlo7i-r-7FOiixa.Ueiv rrtu inttXyio^'iav T« feJeS. 

*fi8 Anon. ap. S. Athan. Tom. III. p. 4. a. Al. ap. S. Chry- 
80St. Tom. VI. p. 510. Auct. de xlii. Mans, SchoU. Codd^ 
15. 18. 37. Confes. Eccl. Orient, p. 139. 

^^9 Vid. supr. p. 275. n. ^3\ 

*'^ Hippolyt. contr. Noet. cap. xvii. ©£of l» cuixuli 

*^* S. Athan. Ep. iv. ad Serap. Tom. II. p. 706. — 'x»«^i y»^ 

*A7roroAov ffvfyvwi*v)v uvrol't; vs^oilay xj oXqh) X*^F* c-vtoT^ h ra ^£yin> 
licleivoyla., oT» k^ oiAo^.oyttfJi.hui y-iya. er* to t^j tvat^eiai fAVf/if t9}>* 

* * S. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. iv. Tom. II. p. 581. ed. Par. 

1638. — <Ka.v\tq qI to* Aoyov KTi^vacrovltq If t«t« to Satz/AOt t5 (AVfyi^'itg 
v,uia.yi.viwiia-if oTt 0£Of l^avE^wS*} iv a«§xt, St* o Aoyoj cagl lyiiti* 
X. T. I. Conf. pp. 430. 445. 536. 595. 

*" S. Chrysost. Comment, in 1 Tim. Tom. XI. p. 605. 

Ka» ofAoXo78fA£va>«, ^*j<7t, fjisya. Ir» to r^q tiffs^siaq [/.vrri^ioV ©Co? 
I(pav£§w3*j U ffa^y.) iS'ixata/Sw iv TrnvfAoli' rali^iv i oUovouia n ivep r,fA,uit 

^—■ivvG'/ia-ov TO f4.vrv^iov $U ete^oit »my» 79 <jrga.yi/.» hiyuv, ©eef 

U 



( 290 ) 
Cyril *7*, of Alexandria, Theodorit ^^^^ and Eutlm- 
lius^'^. At a considerable distance of time, occur 
Danmscene*"^ and Epiphanius Diaconus*^*; who 
are followed by Photius*'^^ (Ecuinenius^^°, Theo- 
pliylact"^^', and others*^*, at different intervals. 

s^av:e(SBr, Iv a-afy.)y rarsfm o ^y.uie^yo^. Conf. Tom. I. p. 497* 
VIII. p. 85. sqq. 
*'* S. Cyril. Alex. Orat. I. de Rect. Fid. Tom. V. P. ii. p. 124. 

ed. Par, 1638. k) S/zoXoya/^tayw? {jiiya. Eft TO r%s iva-i^iia,; {Avryifiov' 

VAilrili >cj iruiluq o Iv. 0i5 Ilalpo? A078?* aro; yoc^ I'raJ /xsya to rv{ 

{/.iyot Iri TO Trig evTt'^iiccq [jLvr*i^iQ]/' ©eor i^unfuBr] it era ^k) x,r,h 
Conf. p. 153. Tom. VI. p. 148. 

*'5 Theodor. Comment, in 1 Tim. Tom. III. p. 478. ed. Par. 

1642. ©cOS" e<pa,»sfou^ri Iv aufKr ©60S" ya^ u» )^ 0itt vloCj Jt^ 
ao^alov s^uv Tr,v (pv(7iVy dvjAo? uTraiTiv ivav^^WTrKs-cte lykvelo, au(pui 
^j ^//,a5 T«5 ovo (pvain; iOioa^ev. iv aocsxl yoip Tr/V S"£tav £^>! (panoubrivxt 

^•'^ Eiithal. ap. Zaccagn. p. 692. Ka* S/^tAoyi^^Evwj /^sVa Ir* 

TO T»js ivai^iix(; [xv<-y:fizv, ©bo^ t^avefu^m x. t. I. 

*77 Damascen. Tom. II. p. 263. ed. Par. 1712. Ku) t^oXoye- 

yi,Ux<; fxiyx If* to tvjj tiai^iiacq fxVfK^iof. ©gbs" l(paye^uBv iv cra^x*' 
X. r. E. 

''^ Epiphan. Djac, in Cone. ir. Nic. — <* audi igitur Paulum 
magna voce clamantem, et veritatem i.stam corroborantem : 
* Dens manifestatu5; est in came, justificatus est in spiritu — . 
O magni doctoris afFatum ! ' Deiis^ inquit manifestatus est in 
carne, &c. A p. Lab. et Cossart. Concill. Tom. VII. col. 
618. 

^^5 Phot. Comment, in 1 Tim. Keel luoXoyaijisvuc fxiyx Irl to 

T^5 Bvci$eixq fy.trr,fioV ©eoS" i'pxn^u>Br,y y.. t. i. C. Cod. MS. 

Cantab, n. 2430. 250. 

*8o CEcumen. Comment, in 1 Tim. Tom. II. p. 227, 228. ed 

Par. 1631. ©£oy E^avE^wSyj l» cufx.) h^oii, otyx^x^fj^hq, ©gg;- 

-fa^att^^^n ly crapxi, thu ?^iyn to fAVrr/fun 



( 291 ) ^ 

S. On 1 Joh. V. 7. we may cite Tertullian *'' in 
the age next the apostolical^ and St. Cyprian in the 
subsequent aera*^*. In the following age, we may 
quote Phcebadius*^^ Marcus Celedensis**^ and 
Idatius Clarus*^^; and in the succeeding age^ Eu- 

*"' Theophyl. Comment, in 1 Tim. p. 769. ed. Lond. 1636. 

*^* Ep. Dionys. Alexandr. adscript. Anon. ap. S* Athaft. de 
Incarn. Verb. Tom. II. P. ii. p. 33. Al. ibid. p. 5^4. Anon. ap. 
Theodorit. Tom. IV. pp. 13. 15. Euthym. in Panopl. 1 it. xv* 

*^^ Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. xxv» p. 506. " Ita connexus 
** Patris" in Filio, et * Filii' in * Paracleto' tres efficit cohee- 
rentes, alterum ex altero, qui " tres unum sunt," non unus; 
quomodo dictum est, '* ego et Pater unum sumus,** ad sub" 
stantice unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." 

*'* S. Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 109. " t)icit Dominus; 
*« Ego et Pater unum sumus." Et de " Patre et" Filio " et 
Spiritu Sancto" scriptum est ; ** et hi tres unum sunt.*' Conf. 
Ep. Lxxiii ad Jubaian. p. 203* 

*8* Phcebad. contr. Ariann. cap. xlv* * Dominits " Petam,** 
inquit, ** a Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis." Sic 
alius a Filio " Spiritus" sicut allies a Patre ** Filius." Sic tertia 
in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen DeuS 
(omnia) quia *' tres unum sunt." Max. Bibi. Patrr. Tom. IV. 
p. 305. b. 

*s^ Marc. Celed. Expos. Fid. ad Cyril. " Nobis unus 
" Pater," et unus * Filius* ejus verus Deus, et unus '* Spiritus 
Sanctus" verus Deus, ** et hi tres unum sunt ;" una divinitas, 
et potentia, et regnum." Sunt autem tres Personae, non duse, 
non una," &c. Ap. S. Hier. Tom. IX. p. 73. g. Conf« 
Ep. Lxxvii. Tom. II. p. 302. 

'^^ Idat. Clar. de Sanct. Trin. Lib. I. — dicehte Jqanne Evan- 
gelista in Epistola sua ; '* tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt iii 
coelo, " Pater, et V^erbum, et Spiritus, et" in Christo Jesu 
*' unum sunt/' non tamen unus est, quia non est iju hfs una 



( S92 ) 

cherius^^^ Victor Vitensis^^^^ and Vigilius Tap- 
sensis*9°. Fulgentius*^' and Cassiodorus*'^ occur 
in the next age; and Maximus^^? j,^ i\^q subsequent: 
to whom we might add many others^ or indeed the 
whole of the Western Churchy who^ after this pe-^ 

persona." Ap. S. AthaJi. Tom. III. p. 606. f. conf. pp. 607. b. 
622. a. 

*^^ Eucher. Formull. Spirit. Intellig. cap. xi. n. 3. — m Jo* 
minis epistola : " Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in ccelo, 
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et tres sunt, qui testi- 
monium dant in terra, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis." Max. BibL 
Patrr. Tom. VI. p. 838. e. 

*^' Vict. Vitens. de Persec. Vandal. " Et ut adhuc luce 
clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanc- 
tum doceamus, Johannis Exmngelistce testimonio comprobatur : 
ait namque, ** Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo. 
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Max. 
Bibl. Patrr. Tom. VIII. p. 686. a. 

»5o Vigil. Tapsens. contr. Varimad. " Johannes Evangelista 
— arf Parthos: "Tres sunt" inquit, "qui testimonium perhibent 
in terra," aqua, sanguis, et caro, et hi tres in nobis sunt : ** et 
tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, 
et Spiritus, et hi tres unum Sunt." Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. V. 
p. 729. b. 

*^' Fulgent. Respon. contr. Ariann. " Beatus Joannes Apos- 
tolus teatatur d'lcens; Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in 
coelo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus: et tres unum sunt." Quod 
etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus in Ep. de Unit. Eccles. 
confitetur," &c. Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. IX. p. 4.1. f. 

*** Cassiod. Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn. *« Testifi- 
cantur " in terra" tria mysteria, *' aqua, sanguis et spiritus," 
quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta : " in coelo autem 
Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus," et hi tres unus g%% 
JDeus." 

*^' Maxim. Disput. contr. Ariann. wpoj ^\ reto^^ Tras-n*, 
'lu&vvini (pdarxn ** >^ o» 7fus re i» stV**.'* Ap. S, Athan, Tom. IIL 
" . 229. a. 



( 29,^ ) 

riod, generally adopted this verse in their authorised 
version ''^*. 

With respect to 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts xx. 28. it is, 
I trusty unnecessary to add another argument in 
support of their authenticity. Admitting that there 
exists sufficient external evidence to prove that those 
verses constituted a part of Scripture; the internal 
evidence must decide, whether we are to consider 
them genuine, or must reject them as spurious. The 
point at issue is thus reduced to a matter of fact, on 
which there is no room for a second opinion. It 
has been, I trust, sufficiently shown, that the one 
text is supported by the testimony of the Eastern 
Church, and the other by that of the Eastern and 
Western. The inference is of course obvious^ with-? 
out a formal deduction. 

With respect to 1 John v. 7. the case is materi- 
ally different. If this verse be received, it must be 
admitted on the single testimony of the Western 
Church ; as far at least as respects the external evi- 
dence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to 
set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and 
pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question 
arises on the authenticity of a passage which pro- 
perly belongs to the text of the former; yet when 

^* Mar. Victorin. in Hymn. iii. Ambrosius Ansbertus Com- 
ment, in Apoc. &c. Conf. Bengel. Appar. Crit. not. in h. |. 
§ xviii — " Post Annum m. Radulphus ArdenSy Rupertus 
Tvitiensis, BernarduSy Hugo Victoriinus, Lombardus, Aquitias^ 
ScotuSy ceteriy sine descrimine, dictum citant. Vid. Dorschei 
Diss, de Sp. Aq. et Sang. p. 11. Calov, Bibl. 111. h. I." Vid. 
supr. p. 286. n. *^^ 



( 291 ) 

the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into 
account^ there may be good reason for giving even 
a preference to the Western Church over that of 
the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the 
heresy of the Arians^ who rejected the doctrine of 
the passage in question ^^j. iYl^ latter was wholly 
resigned to that heresy for at least forty years *^^ 
while the Western Church retained its purity. And 
while the testimony borne by the latter on the sub- 
ject before us, is consistent and full ; that borne by 
the former is internally defective. It is delivered in 
language, which has not even the merit of being 
grammatically correct; while the testimony of the 
latter is not only unexceptionable in itself, but pos- 
sesses the singular merit of removing the fore- 
mentioned imperfection^ on being merely turned 
into Greek, and inserted in the context of the ori- 
ginal*'^. Under these circumstances there seems 
to be little reasonableness in allowing the Western 
Church any authority^ and denying it^ in this in- 
stance, a preference over the Eastern. 

But numberless circumstances conspire to 
strengthen the authority of the Latin Chuich in 
supporting the authenticity of this passage. The 
particular Church on whose testimony principally 
we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. 
And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that 
the most implicit respect is due to its testimony, 

*55 Vid. supr.p. 110. n.*. 
^'^ Vid. supr. p. 2a n, ^K 
^^ Comp. pp. 257.260, 



( 295 ) 

1. In those s-reat convulsions which asjitated the 
Eastern and Western Churches, for eight years, 
with scarcely any intermission ^^^ ; and which sub- 
jected the sacred text to the greatest clianges*^^^ 
throug'h that vast tract of country which extends 
round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the 
African provinces were exposed to the horrours of 
persecution but for an inconsiderable period '°°. 
The Church, of course, which was estabhshed in 
this region, neither required a new supply of sacred 
books, nor received those which had been revised by 
Eusebius and St. Jerome; as removed out of the 
range of the influence of those antient fathers. 

2. As the African Church possessed this compe- 
tency to deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on 
the subject before us; that which it has borne is as 
explicit as it is plenary : since it is dehvered in a 
Confession prepared by the whole church assembled 

^^ Euseb. de Martyrr. PaLiest. cap. xili. p. 437. 1. 10. 

retvra, ^e> h rcc yard Ucc>.ctirlv7)v Iv oKoif ersai oxrco crviATroc^u^inoo 

rcuv ufx^vTuv s-Trctvocraceaiv' iv alj 7ro^t;Tf07ro^ — r,hMy.oru\> uyuvzi 
aiot^i^^QV Tk ir'hn^Qq (Accprnfuv y.cclx Trcccra,* lita^yQav crvvtTvia-ano^ 
6V rrns a-ro Aifivm tC^ di oXtjs- 'Aly^^^rw, 2y§/af re j(^ TiI'v 
aTr' avaToX-^f x^ y.\i)i.'Kco /xsx,§t to 'IXku^nCo)/ K>-/^<<a Tra^a- 

'^'^ Vid. supr. p. 27. n. "^^ 

^''® Euseb. ibid. p. 4 37. 1. 23.— PaM'^ te x^ Zau %(£{d. h'ay.siat. 
ri\iov Ivi 'E-jfccHuv Maiv^<Tavi(ZV re ^ *A(pfi>cr,v »^' oXois srsni 
ovai ToTr ir^dorois r» ^nwypta rov Tro^sptov v^noiABivavroc, 



( §96 ) 

in council. After the African provinces had been 
over-run by the Vandals^"', Hunnerick, their king, 
summoned tbe bishops of this churchy and of the 
adjacent isles, to dehberate on the doctrine incul- 
cated in the disputed passage '°\ Between three 
and four hundred prelates attended the Council, 
which met at Carthage '°^ ; and Eugenius, as bishop 
of that see, drew up the Confession of the ortho- 
dox '°^ in which the contested verse is expressly 
quoted -"^ That a whole church should thus con- 
cur in quoting a verse which was not contained in 

3°' Evagr. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. p. 395. 1. 45. 

^pYlffy.tveov, utxoreiTcc oijtOeto ui^^l Ttf? bv Av^vri Xptr»av«?, Ti?f 

^°* Edict. Hunneric. ap. Vict. Vitens. de Persec. Vandall.— . 
** Et quia in Provinciis a Deo nobis concessis scandalum esse 
nolumus, — hoc nos statuisse cognoscite, ut ad diem Kal. Febr, 
proxime futurarum, amissa omni excusatione formidinis, omnes 
Carthaginem veniatis, ut de ratione fidei cum nostris venera- 
bilibus Episcopis possitis inire conflictum, et de fide Omousia' 
noruniy quam defenditis, de divinis scripturis proprie approhetisj 
quo possit agnosci si integram fidem teneatis." Max. Bibl. 
Patrr. Tom. VIII. p. 682. d. 

^'^^ Vict. Vitens. ibid. p. 683. d. " Appropinquabat jam fu- 
turus dies ille calumniosus Kal. Febr. ab eodem statutus. Con- 
veniunt non solum universce Africce, verum etiam insularum 
multarum Episcopi,** &c. A catalogue of the bishops is given, 
p. 689. e. sqq. 

3^4 Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. VIII. Preef. p. i. « lisdem 
[libris Vict. Vitens. de Pers. Vand.] inserta Professio fidei 
Catholicorum Episcoporum Africae, quae ex Gennadio cap. 
xcvii, probabilius creditur esse Eugenii Carthaginiensis Epis- 
copi — . 

3^* Ut supr. p. 292. n. »8^ 



C 297 ) 
the received text, is wholly inconceivable : and ad^ 
mitting^ that 1 Joh. v. 7. was thus generally received, 
its universal prevalence in that text is only to be 
accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it 
from the beginning. 

3. The testimony which the African church has 
borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly 
recommended by the universal consent, than the 
immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests 
the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor 
Vitensis and Pulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cy- 
prian, and Tertullian, were Africans '°^, and have re- 
ferred to the verse before us ^°^ Of these witnesses, 

^ Cave. Cartophyl. Eccles. p. 99. ** Fictor, genie Afir 
Vitensis in Africa ICpiscopus: An. 487." Id. ibid. p. 104.. 
** Fulgentiiis A/er, ex Abbate, Ruspensis hi Africa Episcopus : 
clar. circ. An. 508." Id. ibid. p. 23. « Ci/pnwius, Cartha- 
giniensis — ab An. 248. Episcopus Carthagiuieiisis.''* Id. ibid, 
p. 16. " Tertidlianus, Presbyter Carthaginiensis circa An. 
192." Bengel. Apparat. Crit, var. in 1 Job. v. 7. § xiv. p. 
461. *' Expositio haec [vid. supr. p. 291. n. ^^^] nomen auc- 
toris non habet adjectum ; sed praeter cetera, tenor versionis 
Latina^, in dictis ibi citatis, ostendit, in Africa olim earn esse 
scriptam. Et quidem scriptorem ejus esse Marcim Presby- 
terem Celedensem, argumento est ilia epistola quam Hieronyinus 
ad hunc ipsum Marcum circ. A. C. 375 dedit, ubiait, '* De fide 
quam dignatus es scribere Sancto Cyrillo," &c. 

^°^ Vid. supr. p. 291. n. ^^^ sqq. It has been indeed disputed 
that Tertullian quotes any verse ; and that St. Cyprian refers 
to any but 1 Joh. v. 8. Though the testimony of these early 
fathers must stand and fall together ; as St. Cyprian obviously 
follows his master Tertullian : yet Tertullian 's testimony may 
stand by itself. I. It is evident the words " qui tres unum 
sunt," do not fall casually from him, in his controversy with 
Praxeas, (1.) They contain Praxeas's doctrine expressed in 



( 298 ) 

>vhich follow each other at almost equal intervals, 
the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last 

his own language ; " Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virgi- 
nem — ipsum esse Jesum Christum." [Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. 
i.] This identity of Person between the Father and Son, 
Praxeas proved by Joh. x. 30. " Ego et Pater unum sumus." 
Uic ergo jam gradiim volunt Jigere stulti, immo cceci, — — . 
Si enim dixisset imus siuuuSf potuisset adjuvare sententiam illo- 
rum." [Id. ibid. cap. xxii.] The diversity between the Fa- 
ther and Word, he explained away by another expedient ; 
** quid est enim dices Senno nisi vox et sonus oris." [Id. ibid. 
cap. vii.] Hence 1 Joh. v. 7. " tres sunt qui testimonium 
perhibent in ccelo, Pater Verbum et Spiritus, et hi tres unum 
sunt," contains as just a description of Praxeas's doctrine, as 
that heretick could have given. (2.) Of course, those words 
do not give as full an exposition of Tertullian*s notions, as this 
learned antient required, in answering Praxeas; " Ego et 
pater unum sumus." Hie ergo jam gradum volunt figere 
Stulti immo ccEci, qui non videant primo, ** Ego et Pater" duo. 
rum esse significalionem ; dehinc in novissimo, " sumus,*' non 
ex unius esse persona, quod pluraliter dictum est ; turn quod 
** unum sumus," non unus sumus." [Id. ib. cap. xxii.] He 
consequently explains his meaning by other adjuncts and epi- 
thets ; " Filium non aliunde deduco quam de subsiayitia Patris. 
£Id. ibid. cap. iv.] Caeterum ubique teneo unam siibstantiam, 
in trihus cohcBrentibus,** [Id. ibid. cap. xii.] In order to ex- 
press Tertullian's notions fully, 1 Joh. v. 7. should stand, " tres 
testimonium perhibent in ccelo. Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sane-. 
tiis ; quae tres personce, una substantia sunt." This, by the 
way, is the true secret of his omitting the first clause of the 
verse ; and of Cyprian's altering it in declaring, " de Patre et 
Tilio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et hi tres unum sunt." 
For this exposition he certainly offers on the authority of Ter- 
tullian. II. In meddling at all with " qui tres unum sunt," 
Tertullian must be supposed to introduce it as a quotation from 
Scripture ; and taken in this light, it adds greater force ant^ 
clearness to his reasoning. That he introduces it in this rp»n* 



( 299 ) 

to that nearly of the Apostles. They thus form a 
traditionary chain^ carrying- up the testimony of the 

ner, is, I think, apparent from the following reasons : ( 1 .) He 
quotes it precisely in the same manner as Joh. x. SO. " cceci 
non videant, primo, *' Ego et Pater" duorum esse significa- 
tionem; dehinc in novlssimo '* sunius," non ex unius persona, 
quod pluraliter dictum est; turn quod ** unum sunius" non units 
siimiis. Having, by these three reasons, wrested Joh. x. 30. 
from his adversaries, he applies it, thus interpreted, to the 
explanation of I Joh. v. 7. which was even more strongly on 
the side of his adversaries; " tres unum sunt," non iimis, qiio- 
modo dictum est ^ << ego et Pater unum sumus.** The expla- 
natory phrase ' non unus,' added to 1 Joh. v. 7. as well as Joh, 
X. 30. as clearly indicates a quotation, in the one case, as in 
the other, (2.) Considering the whole texture of Tertullian's 
argument, it requires that " tres unum sunt" should be con- 
sidered a Scripture authority. As Praxeas built on Joh. xiv. 8. 
X. fJO. Tertullian builds on Joh. xiii. 16. xvi. 7. for these text* 
clearly proved that personal diversity between the Father, the 
Son, and the floiy Spirit, which Praxeas denied; as they re- 
presented the Son as interceding ttvM the Father, and both as 
sendin^r the Holy Ghost, and of course exhibited the three in 
ditferent Persons. But it was necessary that Tertullian should 
not divide the substance, while he distinguished the Persons ; 
and iKi.i it is which induced him to introduce Joh. xvi. 14, 
with 7. and to bind the whole doctrine together by 1 Joh. v. 7. 
as previously opiained by Joh. x. SO: at the same time that 
he insists on the personal diversity of " Pater et Films." His 
argument will now speak for itself; " post Philippum efc totam 
substantiam quaestionis istius (Joh. xiv. 8.), qua^ in finem Evan- 
gel ii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis, quo Pater et Filiiis 
in sua proprietate distingtcmitur) Paracletum quoque a Patre 
se postidaturum, quum ascendisset ad Patrem, et missiiriiin re- 
promittit (Joh. ib. 16. xvi. 7), et qiddem alium, sed jam pra?- 
misimus quomodo alium, Caeterum " de meo sumet" inquit 
(ib. xvi. 14.) " sicut ipse de Patris." Ita connexus * Patris 
io I^ilip,' et '*Filii in Paraclete* ♦* tres" efficit cohaereutes, alte- 



G 300 ) 

African Churchy until it loses itself in time imme-^ 
morial. 

rum ex altero, qui " tres unum sunt** non unus (1 Joh. v. 7.) 
quomodo dictum est (John x. 30), '* ego et Pater unum sumus;'* 
ad substantiae unitatem, non ad nunieri singularitateni." III. 
That St. Cyprian quotes Scripture is placed bej'ond cent 
troversion by his express declaration ; scrijjitwn est, ** et hi 
tres unum sunt." And that this text is not 1 Joh. v. 8. is 
equally incontrovertible. (1.) The phrase used by St. Cy- 
prian is "tres unum sunt," not "tres in unum sunt;" the 
latter is the phrase in 1 Joh. v. 8. the former that in 1 Joh. 
V. 7. (2.) This phrase, as found in 1 Joh. v. 8. when under- 
stood according to TertuUian's interpretation, which St. Cy- 
prian holds fully in view, is nonsense or blasphemy. As the 
former of these fathers justly determines, that " unus*' in the 
masculine, opposed to " unum" in the neuter, indicates a per^ 
son as distinguished from a substance ; this canon applied to 
«* et hi tres unum sunt,'* in 1 John v. 8. makes " the tcater aitd 
blood** not only Persons, but of " one** substance with " the 
Spirit y" I forbear to point the inference. In following Ter- 
tullian, and referring to Scripture, St. Cyprian of course must 
be supposed to allude to 1 Joh. v. 7. when he declares ; " de 
Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est : et hi tres unum 
sunt.*' The case of Cyprian being made out, that of Tertul- 
lian derives impregnable strength from it : admitting the former 
to have seen this verse, the only probability is, tiiat it must 
liave been seen by the latter : as it is absurd in the extreme to 
conceive it could have crept into the text in the period that 
intervenes between them, and have so generally prevailed as to 
be quoted by the whole African Church in the Council of Car- 
thage. IV. But one or two further considerations seem to set 
the matter out of dispute ; and to demonstrate, that 1 Joh. v. 
7. could not have been forged between the times of Tertullian 
and those of the Council of Carthage. In the term Son, lay 
the whole strength of the Catholick's argument ; in the term 
Word, lay that of the hereticks : Tertullian had particularly 
insisted on the former; aod St. Cyprian had absolutely con- 



( 301 ) 

4. The testimony of the African Churchy which 
possesses these stron^^ recommendations^ receives 
confirmation from the corroborating evidence of 
other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. 
Phoebadius and Eucherius^ the latter of whom had 
been translated from the Spanish to the Galilean 
Church, were members of the latter^**'; and both these 
churches had been exempt^ not less than the Afri- 
can, from the effects of Dioclesian's persecution ^°9. 
Both those early fathers, Phoebadius and Euche- 
rius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage : 
the testimony of the former is entitled to the greater 
respect^ as he boldly w^ithstood the authority of Ho- 
sius'*°^ whose influence tended to extend the Arian 

nected " Pater et Fdius et Spiritus Sanctus,'' with *' hi tres 
unum sunt ;*' and yet the Council of Carthage, and the fathers 
of the African Church, thus uniformly quote 1 Joh. v. 7. " tre* 
sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo. Pater, Verbum, et Spi- 
ritus Sanctus." I must question the seriousness of any man 
who will persist in declaring, that he believes the latter verse, 
which is directly in favour of the hereticks' notions, and in op- 
position to the authority of Tertullian and Cyprian, could have 
been inventcdby any member of the African Church ; or that 
any authority could have gained it admission in this form into 
the received text of that Church, but that which it derived from 
the implicit conviction of its members, that it was written by 
St. John the Evangelist. 

^°^ Cave. ub. supr. p. 56, " Pkosbadius Galhis, Agenni Epis- 
copus, clar. An. 359." Id. ibid. p. 88. " Eudm-'nis senior, 
ex Monacho Leri?iensi, ab An. circ. 434?. Lugdunetisis Eph' 
copus." 

509 vid. supr. p. 295. n. 5°°. 

"° Phcebad. contr. Ariann. sub. fin. '•' Sed non sum nescius 
«— Osii nomen quasi quemdam in nos arietem temperari — . 



( 302 ) 

opinions in the Western world, at the very pefiod 
in yvhicli he cited the contested passage. In addi- 
tion to these witnesses, we have, in the testimony of 
Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the 
African Church ; and who there becoming- ac- 
quainted with tlie disputed passage, wrote a tract 
for the purpose of employing- it against the Ari- 
ans^". The testimony of these witnesses forms a 
valuable accession to that of the African Church. 

5. We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek 
Church in confirmation of the African Churches. 

Sect hanc contra iios errigentibus machinain brevi admodum 
serraone respondeo. Non potest ejus authorltas praescribi, 
quia aut nunc errat aut semper erravit," &c. Max. Bibl. Patrr. 
Tom. IV. p. 305. c. 

3" Vid. supr. 292. n. *^^ Bengel. Apparat. Crit. var. m 
h. 1. p. 4"71. '* Auctorem Collocationis [int. opuscc. Athanas* 
Tom. III. p. 226.] hodie docent esse Maximum Confessorem : 
qui A. C. 64-0, monasterio suo, prope Constantinopolin relicto, 
in Africam hit: An. 645. Romamvenit: et An. 655 Constant 
tinopolin retractus est. Unde colligas, Maximum dicti Jo* 
hanneiy [1 Job. v. 7. J antehac sibi ignoti, apud Afros fuissc 
votitum ; eaque re exultantem, ipsius dicti ornandi et produ- 
cendi causa Dialogum fecisse. — multa dicta ex Nov. Test, (ne 
de LXX interpr. dicani,) eo modo citat, qui Codicibtis Africaiiis 
respondet : et boo dictum *' tres unum sunt," si ille ex scholio 
duntaxat aliquo, si ex Latinis mom/mentis id repetisset, si alle- 
gatio ex uUa parte minorem firmitudinem haberet : quomodo 
Athanasius, Gra^'cus doctor, eo utens potuisset introduci ? quo- 
modo auctor iotius Colloqnii coronidem ac summam in eo posn- 
isset'^ quomodo Johan?ies id dicere diceretur ? quomodo deni- 
que Arianus, diu reluctatus, cederet ? Vix plus huic Dialog© 
tribui potest, quam tribuimus modo. Latinis Afrorum Codi- 
cibus notitiam dicti sine dubio debet ille auctor : in Grsecis ao 
deinceps repererit, considerent eruditi.*' 



( 303 ) 

Not to insist at present on positive testimonies^'*, 

^** To the testimony of Maxiraus, already cited, n. 5". we 
li>ay, I believe, add that of Socrates, who not only asserts, that 
the Greek text of St. John's epistle had undergone some cor- 
ruptions ; but appeals to the old copies of the original, on a 
reading of 1 Joh. iv. 3. and to the ancient interpreters, as assert- 
ing, that " some had corrupted this Epistle ; wishing to sever 
the humanity from the Godhead." For having declared, Hist. 
Eccl. Lib. VII. cap. xxxii. p. 381. 1. 32. uvtIkoi, yav hfyon^av, 

0T» iv T/j y.a.Bo'^hK'p 'luccvva yiypocTrlo iv roTq i!:a>.ouin<; avliypci^oiqy OTl 
** Trav TTDBViAat o uira'ktin rlv iricr^v, cctto t» 068 «x eV**'* TavtV})/ yuf 
rriv ^iccvoiav ek rcuv TracXociuiv oiyriy^oi(f)cov TTspisTKov, ol x'^oi^nv aTro 
t5 Tijf oixoKOjW.ia? ocyBpuTTn /SaAojtAsj'oi rY,v ©iOTy^ru I he directly ob- 
serves to the purpose already specified: Ibid. 1. 36. ^^9 *J 
ol ituKoiOi 6^/X7}VeTs" avrh tSto tTrsaioiAvivavro, ux; nvsq thv fxx.^mp'- 
ynoavTss rr,v 67r4S'0?'.'/iv, >>vnv ocito t§ ©its tov ocv^futrov BsP^ovn^, 
cvvccviiKYi'rrrcti ^\ avSpwTTOT^? tr, 0£ot»jt»* >t, ax/rj ilal ^vo, uKKci tV. 

Valesius, n. *. in h. 1. observes; *' falhtur hie Socrates, ct dum 
Nestorium reprehendit, in Eutychetis errorem dilabitur, qui 
post unitionem, non duas in Christo, sed unam duntaxat natu- 
ram esse existimabat.'* And yet 1 Joh. iv. 3. v. 7, 8. as read 
in the Latin Vulgate at this day, fully bears out the allegation 
of Socrates. 1. It reads in 1 Joh. iv. 3. " omnis spiritus qui 
solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est ;" and thus exactly corresponds 
with 7ru¥ w»ey/*a o Xv£i Tov 'Ir^aSv utto re ©te «x ertj in Socrates ; 
in opposition to the Greek Vulgate, which reads, t^ ^rav -rrvevfxcc 
fx-h opooXoyeT rov 'ItjctSv X^js^ov sv aa^al kXri'ku'^orocy ex tS 0e5 
iK tn 1 expressly with St. Polycarp, St, John's disciple, vid. 
supr. p, 279. n. *-^^. 2. In retaining " tres sunt qui testimonium 
dant in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Sp. Sanctus, et hi tres unum 
sunt,*' together with " tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, 
spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt ;" it substantiates 
the charge, brought against the Greek copies, by Socrates; 
that they had undergone those mutHatioris which separated the 
humanity from the divinity ; the latter being demonstrable only 
from vers. 7, which has been obliterated in the Greek. 3. As 
reading in vers. 8, '* tre» \mum sunt," instead of o» t^s?? sIj 



( 304 ) 

the disputed v6rse^ though not supported by the 
text of the original Greek, is clearly supported by 
its context. The latter does not agree so well with 
itself, as it does with the testimony of the African 
Church. The grammatical structure, which is im- 
perfect in itself, directly recovers its original inte- 
grity, on being filled up with the passage which 
is offered on the testimony of this witness ^^^ Thus 
far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly 
corroborative of that of the Western. 

6. In fine, as Origen and Eusebius have both 

ro sV etcrt, which occurs In the Vulgar Greek; and thus predi- 
cating " unum sunt" of Spirltus et Sanguis," as well as 
*' Pater et Verbum," it naturally justifies the inference of So* 
crates, respecting the divinity and humanity of Christ, which 
he represents as one^ k^ av./rt eJcr* ^^'o, ochxd 'iv. The allusion, in 
this passage, to *' et hi tres mum suntf** 1 .Joh. v. 7, 8. as these 
verses are read in the Latin Vulgate, is sufficiently obvious. 
It seems to justify a conjecture, that Socrates wrote >cj a y.iTraif 
fiV; Uof uAhoi 'iv. But souie officious scribe, ignorant of the 
variation in 1 Joh. v. 8. {^k ^o ev, in the Greek Vulgate, being- 
rendered " unum sunt," in the Latin) turned a Scripture quo- 
tation into an heretical assertion, by changing e xiTrai into «x/t«. 
For an example of KiTr^i in the sense ascribed by S. Jerome 
to posit um est, ut infr. p. 310. n. *. conf. ib. n. '. et supr. p. 93. 
n. *®^ The reader may determine for himself, how far it is pro- 
bable, Socrates might have acquired so much knowledge of the 
Latin version through M. Celedensis, or some other Latin in- 
terpreter. As he long survived P. Damasus, vid. Socrat. Hist. 
Eccles. Lib. VIL cap. ix. p. 854?. under whom St. Jerome revi* 
sed the Latin text of the Vulgate in :\:hich the abQV€ readmgs 
ccciir, he had sufficient acquaintance with the affairs of the 
Western Church to attain information on this subject; vid, 
lib. II. capp, XXX. xxxi. p. 127. sqq. 
■ 3^^ Vid. supr. p. 260. conf, p. 2;54. 



( 305 ) 

thought that one church becomes a sufficient voucher 
for one even of the sacred books of the Canon ^'"^j 
and as Eusebius has borne the most unquahfied evi- 
dence to the integrity and purity of the Church of 
Africa'*', we can have no just grounds for rejecting 
its testimony, on a single verse of Scripture. And 
when we consider the weight of the argument arising 
in favour of this verse from the internal evidence ; 
how forcibly the subject of it was pressed upon the 
attention of St. John ; and how amply it is attested 
by that external evidence which is antecedent, though 
deficient in tliat which is subsequent, to the times of 
the apostles, our conviction must rise, that this pas- 
sage is authentick. But when we add the very obvi- 
ous solution which this want of subsequent evidence 
receives, from the probability that Eusebius sup- 
pressed this passage in the edition which he revised ; 
and which became the received text of the Church, 
which remained in subjection to the Arians, for the 
forty years that succeeded : I trust nothing further 
can be wanting to convince any ingenuous mind, 
that 1 John v. 7. really proceeded from St, John 
the Evangelist. 

I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal 
integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the 
vindication of these passages. It has been my en- 
deavour to rest it upon its natural basis; the testi- 
mony of the two Churches, in the eastern and west- 

^'* Vid. supr, p. 236. n. '^\ Conf. Euseb. Lib. VI. cap. xxv. 
p.291.1. 40. 

^*' Vid. supr. p. 295. n. J^o, 



( 306 ) 

ern worlds in whose keeping the sacred trust was 
reposed. In two instances alone^ which are of any 
moment^ their testimony is found to vary ; and in 
these the evidence is not discovered to be contra- 
dictory^ but defective : and this^ merely on one side. 
To direct us^ however^ in judging between the wit- 
nesses^ the internal evidence at once reveals, that 
an errour lies on the side of that testimony which 
is less full, as it is not consistent when regarded 
alone. Hence, on confronting the witnesses, and 
correcting the defective testimony by that which is 
more explicit, every objection to which the former 
was originally exposed, directly disappears. As 
this is a result which cannot be considered acci- 
dental, there seems to be no possible mode of ac- 
counting for it, but by supposing, that there was a 
period when the witnesses agreed in that testimony 
which is more full and exphcit. However inade- 
quate therefore either of the witnesses may be con- 
sidered, when regarded separately ; yet when their 
testimony is regarded comparatively, it is compe- 
tent to put us in possession of the truth, in all in^ 
stances, which are of any importance. 

It is scarcely necessary any further to prolong 
this discussion, by specifying the relative imperfec- 
tion of those systems, to which the present scheme 
is opposed. Those of Dr. Bentley and M. Gries- 
bach are fundamentally defective in sacrificing the 
testimony of the Eastern Church for the immense 
period, during which the Greek Vulgate has pre- 
vailed; that of M. Matthaei is scarcely less excep- 
tionable, in rejecting the testimony of the Western 



( so? ) 

Church for the still greater period, during which it 
has been a witness and keeper of Holy Writ. 

In fact, whoever saps the basis on which the inte- 
grity of the inspired Word is properly sustained, must 
necessarily build on a foundation of sand. Whe- 
ther we build on the authority of Origen, or of the 
Antient Manuscripts, or that of the Versions of the 
Oriental or of the Western Church, all our docu- 
ments must be taken subject to the testimony of 
tradition. But it seems to be a strange perversion 
of reason, which will lead any man to give a pre- 
ference to such vouchers over the proper witnesses 
of the inspired Word. For while the testimony 
of the former is subject to the same casualties as 
that of the latter, in having the stream of tradition 
rendered turbid in its course ; it is exposed to infi- 
nitely greater chances of corruption, from external 
sources. Particular Manuscripts^ not to speak of 
the sacred writings, yet of the antient Fathers are 
liable to gross and wilful corruption at the first ; 
and Versions may be made, for aught we can deter- 
mine, from corrupt copies, or by unskilful hands. 
In these possible cases, we are possessed of no cer- 
tain criterion to arrive at the truth. But we must 
be assured, that the Sacred Writings were delivered 
in immaculate purity, to those churches, to whom 
they w^ere committed; that they were guarded from 
corruption, by commanding that veneration, which 
has never been excited by any human work; and 
that they have been dispersed to a degree, which 
rendered their universal corruption utterly impos- 
sible, and consequently not likely to be attempted. 

x2 



( 308 ) 

It seems therefore to savour of something worse than 
paradox^ to proceed on the supposition, that the 
copies of Scripture are generally corrupted; and 
that the true reading may be acquired in other 
and suspicious sources. 



SECTION V. 



XhE integrity of the sacred canon being once 
placed beyond the reach of the objectour's excep- 
tions; the raain object of the present inquiry may 
be said to be already accomplished. The great end 
which the inspired founders of the Church had in 
view, in delivering to their successours a written 
Instrument,, was to furnish them with an unerring 
rule of faith and manners. But it is not necessary 
to the perfection of this Instrument, that it should 
be guarded, by a perpetual miracle, from the chances 
of literal errours. The real practical advantages 
of any rule of faith or morals, must result from a 
religious adherence to the precepts which it incul- 
cates. But it will not be disputed, that those pre- 
cepts might have been conveyed in an endless va- 
riety of manners by the inspired writers ; and that 
the language in which they chose to deliver the pre- 
cepts may be endlessly varied, while the doctrine is 
preserved unchanged in its intention and substance. 
Were an exact literal acquaintance with the phra- 
seology of the sacred text indispensably necessary 
to an attainment of the important truths which it 
reveals^ it is obvious the inspired writings could 



( 310 ) 

be beneficial to a very limited number of readers, 
and to those merely in the time of their perusal. 
The impression which the facts and precepts of the 
divine work leave on the mind^ is indeed vivid and 
permanent ; but when the volume is closed^ few re- 
tain an accurate remembrance of the language in 
which they are expressed : and no memory was ever 
adequate to the task of retailing the whole work 
without many omissions and misrepresentations. 

The general and doctrinal integrity of the sacred 
canon being preserved from corruption^ there exists 
no obvious or necessary cause^, that the text should 
be preserved immaculate. How fully impressed 
with this conviction the inspired writers were^ must 
be directly apparent from the use which they have 
made of the Septuagint^ which was ever considered 
a free translation \ Those who were best qualified 
to inform us on this subject have expressly declared, 
that the apostles have quoted from that version*. 

' S. Epiphan. de Menss. et Pondd. cap. vi. Tom. II. p. 163. 

xapSi ia-f^cc'/iX Ul3$ilci uy.coX' «. l^v lpiJi.riViv6[/,Bva, * Kv^is iy.£fct^» 
•TTDoq ffiy tlcnxymcov y.t, Ucotr^si Tn (puvvi** o^tx, hv Truq ^uXov ivpiatttlai* 
01 ^£ lB^oiA,rjKOprci^vo IpiJ.rivtviec) 'jrpocrlsBux.orsi; to, ' ^iVjo-Baq yLHy* 

erg, iic70(,KHaov jw,8, TTfo^p/s; T15 (puv-n rtfi dt^aiuq (/.a, v.a.t opoc vug 

ToTs" 01/.0I01S ccvTcov '-f-ciTcc Tr;y 'Trpoa-^nzviv TTxvlci^^ vTTo ruv uvruv 
lpu-/ivBvlu!v •A.iiyi.ivoiq, oTt KoXus o\ Xoyoi iTpoGcTi'b'naccv eIs" (ppoiai)) ytaX 
Cj(p€kzi'xv ruv fjLih'KQvruv t^wv efs twv t5 ©sa tt/th' wyscr^at h, t. u 
vid. infr. nn. * et ^. 

^ S. Hier. adv. Ruffin. Lib. II. cap. ix. Tom. II. p. 25 K 
<' Apostolici viri Scripturis utuntur Hebraicis; ipsos Apostolcs 



( 311 ) 

Yet while they are no where observed to follow it, 
where it misrepresents the sense,, they are fre- 
quently observed to quote it where it merely deserts 
the letter ^ While the circumstance of their wri- 
ting* in Greek clearly demonstrates the prevalence 
of that language among their early converts ; it is 
observable, they made no provision, that the primi- 
tive church should possess a better translation of 
the Old Testament, ^than that of the Septuagint. 
It must be therefore inferred, from their practice, 
that they considered the literal errours of that tran- 
slation a matter of minor importance. 

et Evangelistas hoc fecisse persplcuum est. Dominus atque 
Salvator, ubicumque Veteris Scripturae meminit, de Hebraicis 
voluminibus ponit exempla : — in ipsa cruce OnntJ/ nnh »^« »^« 
Eli Eli lama azavtani: quod interpretatur ; * Deus meus, Deus 
meus, quare me dereliquisti :' non ut a Sepfuaginta position est, 
* Deus meus, Deus meus, re spice in me, quare me dereliquisti :* 
et multa his similia. Nee hoc diciraus, quod Septuaginta in- 
terpretes suggillemus, sed quod Apostolorum et Christi major 
sit auctoritas : et vbicumque Septuaginta ah Hebrceo non dis- 
cordant, ibi Apostolos de interpret at ione eoriim siimpsisse exem- 
pla, ubi vero discrepant, id posuisse in Graeco, quod apud He- 
brcBos didicerajit.'* Videatur Id. Procem, in Lib. XV. Com. 
Is. Tom. IV. p. 174. 

5 Vales. Epist. de Vers. Septuag. Interp. subnex. Euseb. 
Hist. p. 791. 1. 88. Caeterum ut ea quae dixi, in compendium 
redigam, de versione LXX ita censeo. Primum quidem, uni- 
cam semper fuisse LXX Seniorum versionem — kac semper usos 
esse Judaos Alexandrines, et reliqiios Hellenistas. A Judaeis 
deinde Chrlstianos earn accepisse. Neque enim Apostoli et 
primores illi Christiani alia Veteris Instrumenti interpretatione 
Grceca sunt usi, quam ea qucs vulgo in Synngogis Judceorum 
Plellenistarum legebatur.*' 



( 312 ) 

We are not however at liberty to conclude^ that 
the inspired writers abstained from revising the 
Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures^ because 
they considered a purer text of no importance to the 
early converts. It is rather implied in their prac- 
tice^ that they considered the advantages resulting 
from a purer text, would not be compensated by 
the inconveniences which would arise from disturb- 
ing a settled state of affairs. The authority of the 
Greek version was already acknowledged by mul- 
titudes of the Gentile proselytes to Judaism ; and 
through the instrumentality of it, numbers might 
be led to a knowledge of Christianity, who would be 
so far from accepting a new version from the hands 
of the apostles, that they rejected the notion of their 
divine commission. On these grounds, I will not 
say it was .politick, but I believe it was agreeable 
to the principles of the apostles, whp never gave 
unnecessary offence, to retain the received text, 
as read in the synagogue. And on these grounds, 
I conceive we may meet the advocates for a Cor- 
rected Text or Improved Version of the New Tes- 
tament, in defending the Received Text or Vulgar 
edition. Admitting that we were agreed on the 
discovery of such a text, which, for my own part, 
I reject as an idle chimera; the general reception 
of the Vulgar Text and Authorised Version, and the 
existing prospect of its extensive diffusion, would 
still render it a question, whether a change would 
not be for the worse, instead of the better. And 
in favour of these prejudices, we may plead a very 
antient prescription. On the first endeavour to 



( 313 ) 

impose a new version on the Latin Church, similar 
apprehensions were felt, and hke discontent was 
manifested by its members *. 

Though on these grounds the Greek Vulgate 
would admit of a fair defence, I am prepared to dis- 
pute its claims to a preference over every text and 
edition, on different principles. It challenges the 
testimony of tradition in its favour, for full eleven 
hundred years, even by the concession of its oppo- 
nents ^ ; and unless I am altogether wrong in my 
calculations, that period may be demonstrably ex- 
tended to full fourteen hundred ^ The inferences 
flowing from these circumstances have been already 
made ; and if any force be allowed to what I have 
advanced, it must be allowed at the least, — That 
this text is of the best edition, and that it is free 
from any considerable corruption in the general te- 
nour of the text, and in the parts affecting* any point 
of doctrine. 

With respect to the verbal integrity of the text, 
I am far from asserting that I conceive the Greek 
Vulgate immaculate. On the contrary, 1 believe it 
may be inferred, in the strictest consistency with 
what has been hitherto advanced^ that the Byzan- 

* S. August ad Hier. Epist. lxxi. Tom. II. col. 161. " Ego 
pane te mallem Grcecas potius canonkas nobis interpretare scrip- 
turas, quce Septuaginta interpret iim auctoritate perhibentar, 
Perdurum enim erit, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias 
cceperit lectitari, quod a Greeds ecclesiis Latince ecdesice dissQ-* 
nabunt, &c." Conf. supr. p. 119. n. '^ 

5 Vid. supr. p. 126. n. *°. 

^ Vid, supr. pp. 71. 121, 



( 314 ) 

tine text may possess verbal errours, while the 
Eo-yptian and Palestine editions preserve the ge- 
nuine reading. As these different texts underwent 
the revisal of separate hands; it is possible that the 
care which was employed in removing an imaginary 
defect^ might have created a positive errour; and 
that the errour which thus arose might have been 
propagated through all the copies which have de- 
scended from the same edition. 1 here only enter 
my protest against the inference, that these errours 
could have extended to important points ; or that 
the edition in which they abounded could have pre- 
vailed for more than a limited period, and during 
the operation of some powerful cause, against the 
received text, which generally prevailed in the 
christian world, as published by the apostles. 

On this possibility we may fairly ground an in- 
quiry into the verbal integrity of the sacred canon. 
And the undertaking affords additional inducements 
to invite investigation, as it is not only curious in 
itself, but promises the most favourable result to 
the reputation of the Greek Vulgate. In the course 
of this inquiry, I am wholly deceived, or it may be 
shewn, that the principles on which the Vulgar Text 
has been judged, are wholly fallacious ; and that 
there are criteria by which we can not only esta- 
blish the relative purity of that text, and evince the 
imperfections of other editions ; but trace the cor- 
ruptions of the latter to the very source in which 
they have originated. 

I. The most formidable objections to which the 
credit of the Greek Vulgate is exposed^ arise from the 



( 315 ) 

complicated apparatus of M. Griesbach. Some idea 
of the manner in which he proceeded in forming his 
Corrected Text, may be collected from his critical 
description of those manuscripts which he denomi- 
nates Codd. h, 17. The principles of his criticism 
are reducible to two canons^ which are laid down in. 
his description of the latter manuscript ^. In judging 
between different readings, he decides ; that attention 
must be paid, 1. to the internal marks of authenticity ; 
2. to the consent of the oldest and best witnesses, con- 
sisting of manuscripts, versions, and fathers; especi- 
ally if they are of different kinds of text^ or follow 
different recensions ^. 

With respect to the internal evidence, he makes 
it depend upon various circumstances; to determine 
which he lays down a variety of rules, applicable to 
most possible cases 9. In estimating the external 
evidence, he considers the Alexandrine and Western 
editions antient and separate witnesses. Of the 
fathers and versions which he principally quotes, he 
joins in alliance with the Alexandrine text Origen 
and the Coptick version '°; or, by their joint or sepa- 

7 Griesb. Symb. Critt. Tom. I. p. Ixxvifi. sqq. Tom. II. 
p. 87. sqq. 

^ Id. ibid. Tom. II. p. 90. n. *. " In judicandis lectlonibus 
spectatm*, (1) interna eariim honitaSy qiise pluribus rebus cer- 
nitur: (2) testium (codicum, versionmii, patrmn) antiqiiorum 
et honorim consensus, prassertim si e diversis familiis orti sint, 
diversasque recensiones texius sequantur.'' Conf. Proleg. N. T. 
p. Ixxix. § e. 

^ Id. Praef. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. lix. sqq. 

'° Id. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxl. *' Copa Iversio'] tam 
presse sequitur vestigia turn Origenis turn cognatorum cum hoc 
codicum^ ut mcridiana luce clarius appareat, posse omnino ex 



( 316 ) 

rate authority, determines those readings which he 
deems Alexandrine ". To these witnesses he unites 
other vouchers, whenever he finds them coincident; 
combining the testimony of Clement, Eusebius, 
Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, with that of Origen '* ; 
and strengthening the evidence of the Coptick by 
that of the Vulgate and Syriack version '^ With 
the Western text he, of course, endeavours to unite 
the testimony of the Western fathers ; combining, 

hac translatione judicium fieri, non solum de i?idole tmhersa sed 
de singulorum etiam locorum lectionibus exemplaris istius, quod 
interpres in vertendis sacris libris usurpavit,*' «S:c. Conf. Proleg. 
N. T. p. Ixxviii. c. 

** Id. ibid. p. cviii. " Lectiones codici nostro [L.] cum 
uno alterove Alexandrino communes pro lectionibus Alexandrince 
recensionis indubie sunt habendae." Id. ibid. p. cxxix. " Inter 
omnes quotquot supersunt Evangeliorum codices nullus propin* 
quiore affinitate cu7n L et Origine conjunctus est Codice C. — 
Sed vix unquam C et L in lectione a textu vulgari diversa, quoe 
non sit nullius plane momenti conveniunt, quin Origines ultro 
comitem lis sese adjungat, Qua2 observatio, memoratu longe 
dignissima, firmissimum praesidium est theorice, quam tuemur, 
de receusione Alexandrina, et de textuSy (quern hi codices, con- 
junctim spectati exhibent,) antiquitatef patria, et p-cBstantia,^* 

** Id. ibid. p. cxxxiii. " Vicimus igitur, Codices C et L — 
plenos esse Alexandrinarum lectionum vetustissimarum, eosdem- 
que, ubi a vulgari textu ita discedunt ut inter se consentiant^ 
semper, paucissimis forte locis exceptis, lectiones exhibere 
easdenif quas Origines ex suo exemplari excitavit. — Quos in 
Evangeliis perpetuos fere habuit [Cod. C] comites, (nempe 
Origineniy Clementem, Eusebiiimy Athanasiiim^ Cyrillumy et in- 
terpretem CoptuMy nee non iEthiopum et Armenum) ad 
eorundem in Epistolis quoque societatem, tantum non semper 
applicat. Itaque in his etiam libris textus ejus Alexandrinus 
est et vetustus." 

" Yid. Symbb. Critt, ib. p. Ixxx. sqq. 



( 317 ) 

as far as is possible^ the evidence of Teitullian and 
Cyprian, with that of the Latin translation '^. To 
those reading's, which are supported by the greatest 
weight of evidence, he necessarily gives the prefer- 
ence. But he attaches very different degrees of 
importance to his different witnesses : according to 
the following scale of gradations '^ J^. The testi- 
mony of both recensions must be received in siib- 
jection to the internal marks of perfection or errour. 
2. A reading which, when internally regarded, is 
apparently good, is admissible on the single tcsti* 
mony of either the Western or Alexandrine recen- 
sion, in opposition to that of the Byzantine. 3. The 
authority of the Alexandrine is preferable to that of 
the Western, as it is less generally corrupted ; but 
the conspiring testimony of these witnesses is of 
the greatest weight, in recommending a peculiar 
reading. 

The main stay of this comphcated system, which 
is intended to form an alliance between the Alexan- 
drine and Western texts, in order to outweigh the 

"* Id. ibid. pp. cxviii. cxix. 

*5 lb. ibid. Tom. II. p. 624?. " Ex quibus omnibus efRcitur, 
(1) — in judicanuis lectionibus alterutri recensioni peculiaribus 
sententiam ferendam esse secundum interim bonitatis lectionis 
cuj usque c77/ma .- (2) lectionem in se spectatam bonam ac pro- 
babiiem — pioeferendam esse lectioni vulgarium — librorum, $i 
allcrutrius recensionis, sive Alexanchincej sive Occidentalis ei 
patrocinetur : (3) majorem tamen esse. — Alexandriiice, utpote 
minus interpolata?, aucloritatem^ quam Occidentalis — . Quanti 
vero mouienti nobis esse videatur vtritisque recensionis consen- 
f'Cjis ted'imonlum, sa?pius diximus," Conf. pp. 143, H4, 145, 
Proleg. N. T. p. Ixxix. sqq. 



( 318 ) 

authority of the text of Byzantium^ is rested on the 
supposition, that both the former are antient and 
separate witnesses ^^ But this is a supposition 
which is certainly founded in errour With respect 
to the antiquity of those editions, it remains to be 
proved, that it is prior to the times of either of those 
persons of th^ name of Eusebius, who pubhshed the 
Alexandrine or Palestine text, and revised the West- 
ern version. And the intercourse which St. Euse- 
bius and St. Jerome maintained with the East'^ 
renders it wholly inadmissible^ that their versions 
should be considered separate witnesses from the 
Alexandrine or Palestine. Their known predilec- 
tion for Origen'^ leaves their testimony, when 
quoted as separate authority for the same text, 
entitled to something less than respect. Not to in- 
sist on later intermixtures of the Eastern and West- 
ern texts, which are antecedent to the existence of 
almost every manuscript with which we are ac- 
quainted '9; we need not pass those concessions, 
Avhich the force of truth has extorted from our op- 
ponents, for a proof that these texts are inextricably 
confused, and blended together^''. 

*^ Vid. supr. p. 315. n. ^ 

>7 Vid. supr. p. 54. n. '\ 221. n. '^^ 83. nn. ^^ et 7o. 

« Vid. supr. p. 144. n. ^\ 137- n. '\ 171. nn. ''' et "^ 

'^ Vid. supr. p. 14. sqq. comp. p. 22. n. '*°. 

*° Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxviii. Ex his mani- 
festum jam est— nullum siiperesse Codicem, qui ubique U7iam atqiie 
ecpiclem recensionem Ha exprimat, ut lectiones ex aliis recen- 
sionibus admixtas habeat nullas, trium quos inter se compara- 
vimus Codicum exem.plo constare potest. Nonnunquam enim 
Origincs et D cojisprant, dmentiente Codice Lj itemque D 



( 319 ) 

Admitting any force to exist in the foregoing re- 
marks, it is still a point in dispute, that the Palestine 
or Western text is antecedent to the text of Byzan- 
tium. If all that has been hitherto advanced be not 
fundamentally erroneous, neither of those texts can be 
aiUedated to the fourth century ** ; at which period 
the last-mentioned text demonstrably existed**. A. 
priority may be indeed claimed for the Alexandrine 
or Palestine text, on account of its alliance to Ori- 
gen's writings. But not to insist on the possibility 
of this text having been ijiterpolaied from his wri- 
tings; the inconstant readings of 'that early father 
renders this plea at best inconclusive ; as'it evinces 
the antiquity of the Byzantine text, by the same 
proof that it establishes that of the Alexandrine. 

Such appear to be the fundamental errours in 
M. Griesbach's system ; which have spread un- 
soundness through his whole superstructure. But 
objections do not apply more forcibly to the plan on 
which he has built, than to the materials which he 
has employed in erecting his structure. We find 
neither solidity nor consistence in the different parts 
of his system. His theory, which is founded on an 
assumption of the existence of an Alexandrine and 
Western recension, is borne out by the coincidence 
of those manuscripts, which he considers antient, 
with the quotations of Origen. But ^ve have only 
to take his own account of ^lie state in which he 

et L interdum concinnunt, refragrante Ongcne.'* Conf. pp, 
cix. cxi. Proleg. N. T. p. Ixxviii.' b. 

""' Vid. supr. pp. 25, 70. 130. &c. 

'"■ Vid. supr, p. 119, conf. pp. T0,7L 



( 320 ) 

finds the best part of his materials^ in order to dis- 
cover the extreme insecurity of the fabrick,, which 
he has buttressed with props so unsound, and raised 
on so hollow a foundation. 

With respect to the testimony ofOrigen, which 
is the basis of his system ; he admits sufficient for us 
to see, that when strict verbal accuracy is sought, it is 
not entitled to the smallest attention. According to 
BI. Griesbach's voluntary concessions, his works 
must have gone through a course of progressive 
deterioration, which must leave us at a distance infi- 
nitely more remote from a knowledge of the pris- 
tine state of his text, than of that of the inspired 
writings. It appears, in the first place, that no re- 
liance can be placed on the printed editions of his 
works, as retaining his text; and as little on the 
fidelity of his different transcribers ^^ Admitting 
his testimony subject to these errours, it is further 
conceded, that no dependence can be safely rested 
on his accuracy of quotation ; as he constantly de- 
serts his written authorities *^ And supposing that 
we have miraculously escaped an errour in pursu- 
ing a reading through these chances ; it is further 

*^ Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cix. *' lihrarii etiam qui 
Origenis opera transcribeyido proj)agariinty et editores qui ti/pis 
excndi ea cararunt, saepenumero justo negligeniiores fuerunt in 
describendis aut recensendis locis e S. S. citatis, eosqiie e Codi- 
cibus junioribus aut editionibus bibliorum Graecorum, quibus 
adsueti ipsi erant, interpolarunt.^* 

^ Id. ibid. p. cviii. ** tenendum est — ron ubique satis certo 
nobis constare, quid in sue cxemplari legerit Origenes ; nam non 
solum paidlo Uberius interdum oracula S. S. excitavit, pallulum 
immidato uno et altera vocabido, aut consfructionis ordine," &c. 



( 321 ) 

granted^ that there is no security in depending on 
the very copies which he used^ as they too were suf- 
ficiently often corrupted *K 

With regard to the cimracter of those Manu- 
scripts, on which our critick chiefly depends^ it 
finally proves to be the case^ that they do not jus- 
tify his speaking" of them in terms more respectful* 
It does not appear^ that in the course of his inqui* 
rieSj he discovered one which preserved either of 
his favourite recensions^ unless in a state of corrup-^ 
tion *^. In numberless instances he demonstrates 
their defects^ and traces the errour to its origin ^". 
Nay, in one sw^eeping clause, he demolishes their 
authority, by openly proclaiming, even of those 
which he holds in the highest repute, that they are 
fouled, in every page, with corruptions from mar- 

*^ Id. ibid. " tenendum est, exemplor Origenisy utut praestan- 
tissimum, et alii nulli secundum, non tame?! ab omni omnino labe 
immune Juisse ; fieri igitur potuisse, ut in nostro codice [L] 
conservaretur prisea et nativa lectio — ubi Origenis exemplar iii' 
terpolatiim jam esset." Conf. p. cxxxii. 

^^ Vid. supr. p. 318. n. "°. 

*^ Griesb. ibid. p. cvi. " Certe exemplari usus est, [libra- 
rius qui Cod. L. scripsit], in cujiis maigine a manu recentiori 
annotatx erant lectiones variae, e junioribus libris decerptee, 
quas cum librarius noster correctiones esse autumaret, passim 
praetulit eas antiquis et genuinis lectionibus, quae in archetypi 
sui textu primitus exstabant. Atque sic irrepsere in codicem 
nostrum lectiones nonnullce sed perpaucas juniores nullius pretii.'* 
Conf. p. 96. If the point were worth disputing in the present 
place, the assertion might be reversed, and the contrary con- 
clusion to what is here assumed as true, might be just as easily 
established, 

t 



( 322 ) 

ginal scliolia, and from the interpretations of the 
antient fathers *^ 

With respect to the testimoriy of Versions, we 
find as httle reason to repose a greater degree of 
confidence in them^ than on the authority of parti- 
cular Manuscripts. The Coptick and Sahidick, 
the later Syriack and Italick ^9_, cannot be accounted 
antient or separate witnesses. As these versions are 
divided by the Eusebian sections ^°, they possess in- 
ternal evidence of having* in some measure descend- 
ed from the Palestine edition. An agreement be- 
tween such witnesses^ may thus furnish evidence in 
favour of the reading of Eusebius's text^ but none 
whatever of the text of the Apostles and Evange- 
lists. With respect to the Persick and Arabick^% 

*^ Griesb. Praef. in Nov. Test. Sect. II. p. 1. " Caeterum 
jiullius codicis vitia de consulto me celasse-aut dissimulasse, 
satis inde patet quod innumeros gravissimosque errores, in iis 
commissos codicibiis, quos caeteroqui ^nagni Jac'io^ velut BCD 
L 1 33 124 157, &c. ingenue indicavU* Conf. Sect. III. 
p. Ixiv, 

*^ In the present instance I would be understood to mean 
that edition of the Old Italick, which was revised by St. Euse- 
bius Vercellensis, and through his influence generally adopted 
in the Latin Church, between the times of Dioclesian's perse- 
cution, and the reception of a new revisal, made by St. 
Jerome. 

^° Adler, de Verss. Syriacc. Lib. II. p. 50. " Idem Thomas 
Evangelia [Vers. Syr, Philox.] in capitula vel sectiones distri" 
huit, et pericopas diebus festis recitandas constituit." Conf. 
supr. p. 82. n. ^^ p. 29. n. ^°. Woid. Pro^.egg. in Vers. Saliid. 
Fragmentt. p. 140. 

*' No one, it is presumed, will claim a higher antiquity for 
these versions, than the age of Constantine, when Eusebius re- 



( 333 ) 

they follow the fate of the same edition. Of these 
versions^ however, as well as of the Gothick^% 

vised the Scripture. Whether we conceive them made in tha,t 
age, or at a subsequent period, we can easily account for their 
affinity to the Palestine edition, by making due allowances for 
the influence of Eusebius's tei^t, as authorised by Constantine ; 
vid. supr. p. 26. n. '^*. conf. p. S4<. n. ^. It is certain, that this 
pious prince took the Christians in Persia under his protection, 
and propagated the Gospel more extensively in Arabia; Euseb. 

Vit. Const. Lib. IV. cap. viii. p. 631. 1. 2. 7rt;0o/>tayos yhot 'Jta^oi 
ra) Hifcuv yivn irKr^^vvnv roi<; Ttf ©£« eHKA>3«ria?, Ka,ii<; Ts /xt'payJpas 
totTi Xp»r« B'otjw.i'atj? tvccyiXot^cO-^aiy ^ai^u* ett* tvj rsruv ocKori, oioi 
7ii Koivoq ruv a,'rrcinccp(H mn^i^uv vu'Kiv KuvravBoi rvjv ruv octfuvtuv 
t\(Trtyz ir^ovoixv, Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xix. p. 49. 1. 3L 

6 ^pt^iocviafjioi ETrXaUvvslo' rr^viKccvra, ya.^ 'Iv^aJv re rwv iv^ore^a 
xj \^Y)£Uv rcc B^r/i) if^o<; to ^^t^iaviQn* IXayS^ve triv u^y^v, Conu 

Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. L cap. viii. p. 502. 1. 20- Lib. IV. cap. 
L p. ^Z^. 1. 15 — 21. It is equally certain, that, as this prince 
was ambitious to diffuse the knowledge of revelation, and mul- 
tiply copies of the Scripture, (Euseb. ib. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 502. 
1. 26. Lib. III. cap. i. p. 576. I. 17.) the Gospel was read in 
Arabia in the reign of his successour, Constantius. Theophi- 
lujs, who was deputed by tHis prince on a mission to that coun- 
try, and founded three churches in it, brought back this infor- 
mation, on his return to the Eniperour; Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. 
Lib. III. $ 5. p. 488. I. 17. ed. Read. Cant. 1720. y.dy.u^t* 

I. 27.3? »*3 wo^^a Tuv 9ra^' avro7$ a;t tvayw^ ^p&jfAEvuv iTrocvuf^usocro, 
3ti yaq xaS's^o/xevoi to/v ivcc\yikiKuv dva.jVMCiJ.oi.rcfjy sTToiSylo rr,if 
dy.p6(x.aiVy x. t. e. 

^* As the Goths embraced Christianity through motives of 
policy, to conciliate the Emperpur Valens, v/ho was addicted 
to Arianism, they adopted the faith with the errours of that 
heresy; Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. i. p. 213. 1. 29. 
cap. xxxiii. p. 256. 1. 1. sqq. At the early period when this 
Emperour reigned, the Gothick version was made; Id. ibid. 

x'ri 



( 324 ) 
Saxon ^^ and Slavonick ^"^^ the testimony of whicft 

p. 9,56- 1. 8' T0T£ ^E xj *OYX<piXecz o ruv Tot^uv ETrianoTro?, -ypajt/i/AaTot 
ra? ^i»^/3a§»? /xa>Sai/£iv ra ^era ?;oy»a wa^acry.Evafrft'. But OS this 

translation was made during the period when the Church was 
under the dominion of the Arians, and by a person who propa- 
gated the errours of those hereticks among the Northern 
tribes, it was obviously accommodated to the text revised by 
Eusebius. We thus easily account for the affinity discoverable 
between the Gothick Version and the Palestine text, or, as M. 
Griesbach terms it, the Alexandrine Recension. It is worthy 
©f remark, that at this period St. Athanasius was alive, who 
revised Eusebius's text under the Emperour Constans; vid. 
eupr. p. 131. sqq. Socrat. ibid. cap. i. p. 214. 1. 19. ^OTdX'/is 

^poUiiiluv l^yaauroj uq ir^o'ikiv o t>3? Wof'^ccq ^-nXua-n 7\oyo<;. KCKloi ^■n 
Tov y^povov rov^E, ryiq /ae» Iv 'Fu>[/,y) UKXriaiaq wposr^xet Af/Si'otos* 

' As^tiuntjicr-nq Aszxoi;. 

^5 The testimony of the Gothick version being disposed of, 
we have nothing to apprehend from the Anglo-Saxon or Sla- 
vonick. What influence the Gothick or Latin Vulgate may 
have had on the former of these last-mentioned versions, I am 
unable to determine ; the destruction of the sacred books, as 
far M'estward as Britain, and the dispersion and influence of 
Eusebius's edition, as authorised by the Emperour Constantine, 
will sufficiently account for any affinity this version may possess 
to the Palestine edition ; vid. supr. p. 27. n. '^^, The British 
Churches are certainly numbered among those who are men- 
tioned in the Epistle of Constantino, as having concurred in 
the decision of the Council of Nice, respecting the time of 
keeping Easter ; Epist. ap. Euseb. Vit. Constant. Lib. III. cap. 
xix. p. 588. 1. 37« i* ottb^ y uv aura, tjjv ruv Pw/z^atwc ttoAjv te y^ 
Aippiy.YjVj 'lra?^luv te a'jrccauv' Alyvn^rov, 'L'^TccAxVf TuXhiotq, Bps-rloiAai, 
Ai^vcy.^y — //tri x^ <rv^^a:v<o (pv>.a.'[\BTui yvcuy-viy cccrnhuq tSto x^ ^ 

vuArs^a -s-po-^jl^Ta* avnaK;, The historian further observes, that 
copies of this Epistle were dispatched into all the provinces of 



( 325 ) 

is unaccountably drawn into the decision of the pre- 
sent question, it must be observed, that if they are 
admitted as antient witnesses, they cannot be re- 
ceived as separate authorities. 

Descending' from the testimony of Manuscripts 
and Versions to that of the primitive Fathers, we 
find no more reason to admit their voice, as defini- 
tive, against the tradition of the Church and the 
authority of the Greek Vulgate. The testimony of 
Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, cannot 
reckon as the evidence of antient or separate wit- 
nesses^^; their concurrence proves no more than is 
proved by the coincidence of the Cop tick and Phi- 
loxonian version ; that this conformity is derived 

the Empire; Ibid. cap. xx. p. 589. 1. 28. ravr-n^ ^ccai^sv^lviroXni 
Itro^vva^ji^a-av y^cctprtv g(p' IxfljfyiS' llIaQ^yjas onTrEixTrsTo* ho'Trl^l^eo-Bon 
rvji avra ^lavoiaq to y.uBccfaiTurov x^ T?ij w^oj to ^sTou oa-icc^j iroLpiymv 

TOK evTuxa^acrt. As he addressed an Epistle to Eusebius on the 
subject of keeping Easter ; he at the same time enjoined him 
to prepare copies of the Scripture ; Euseb. ib. Lib. IV. cap. 
XXxiv. p. G^^. 1. 29. ^£ 1UV Ix-yMo-ii^v t5 Qsh •n-sTrpovo^iA.syo^y 
arc^i KoclacaxBUYtS ^eo7rvsv<3-cov Xoyicov sis vnAsrsqav 'jr^oacoTToy 
tTrail'^ei to y^ccixjxac* a,?^a. ^yj y^ tts^I rrjf uyicJlxrriS t« Uaa'/jx 

^* This Version, according to M. Griesbach, follows the By- 
zantine text, instead of the Alexandrine ; Prolegomm. in Nov. 
Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxv. — " Jicec recensio, quam ConstantinopO' 
litanam hinc nominare licebit, in Patriarchatu Constantinopoli- 
tano potissimum propagata ac per libraries innumeros deinceps 
longe lateque disseminata, et in Slavonicam eiiam Versionem 
(cujus tamen codices ipsi inter se haud raro dissentiunt,) 
transfusa,*' 

35 On this subject I shall have an opportunity of speaking at 
lai'ge hereafter. 



( 326 ) 

from the text of Eusebius. The concurrence of 
Clement and Origen in the East, with Tertullian 
and Cyprian in the West, may be conceived enti- 
tled to greater attention ^^. But, in the first place^ 
the very existence of such a coincidence of testi- 
mony, must be disputed ^'^. And granting that it 
exists in some cases, it is still a point to be proved, 
that it at all identifies the Scripture text used by 
those antient fathers. 

The works of those early writers lie under the 
positive imputation of being corrupted^*. The co- 

2® Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxviii. *' Hinc enim 
coUigimus, plerasque lectiones Codicis D — extitisse jam in 

iji illis libris GrcsciSy e quibus conjicta est Versio Latina VetuSy 
qua usi sunt Tertullianus, Cyprianus, aliique. — recte etiam pro 
antiquissiraa earn a nobis haberi, cum eandem in Tertulliani et 
Cyprlani allegationibus jam inveniamiis. Sed altera Recensio, 
quam proper perpetuum patribus Alexandrinis et cum versi- 
onibus in Mgyipto confictis Alexandrinam appellamus ceque 
\)etusta est, utpote quae Clementis jam et Origenis cevo ex- 
stitit.'* 

^^ I subjoin a few examples of remarkable texts, in \rhich 
Origen differs from Clement, and Cyprian from Tertullian. 
Mat. V. 48. TraTJjp 8V ToTf ipcCMOiS, Vulg. Clem, o Trar-^p 
o ^gavtof. Vat, Orig. lb. x. 39. zv^Tiasi oivrh* Vulg. Orig. cuazi 
ecvrhv. 33. Clem. Luc, xii. 9. hou'Triov rcjv cifyeTiuv. Vulg. Orig. 
€po7r§off3-£v Tc^v a,fyi>.m. Cant. Clem, Mat. xxv. 41. to c^rojpta- 
dJ'ivov ra ^iuBoXu Vulg. jprceparatum diabo lo . o rirotfxxasy 

<7rotT7ip /x8 Tw ^la^oXu) Cant, quern paravit pater meus diabolo. 
Cypr. Gal. i. 9. afysXos e| y^avS, svacfysXi^rflai Trct^' o, Vulg, 
angelus de coelo aliud adnunciet praeterquam. Cypr. afyeXo? s| 
i^a,vH £uccfyE\iffrflai» Alex* angelus ex ccelo aliter evangelizaverit, 
Tert. 

^* The monks of Palestine brought this charge against those 
who took a part in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversy. 



( 327 ) 

pies of Clement and Origen were corrupted in their 
life time ^^ ; the manuscripts from which Tertullian's 

which arose very shordy after the death of St. Athanasius ; 
Epist. Monn. Palest, ap. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap, 
Xxxi. p. 363. 1. 34. k^ » ^xvy.a^ >t) y«p tc Koyas ncclipuv iroWacKiS 

0ai;^a]«^7iw, x^ laAiw, oj« ruv l7riypa(pajv KvctltBiiy.uaH)* ol<; /xa^jj-a 
rhq 7ro?vAa? Tpof ras t^ta? ccas^eiug cr<pBls^i^oila.t, Ruffinus, about 
the same period, brings the same charge against the heterodox, 
not only of the Greek but of the Latin Church ; Rufin. de 
Adult, librorr. Orig. " Verum ne cui forte minus ad creden- 
dum videantur idonea ea quae ex lihris Grceconim Scriptorum 

exempla protulimus, non pigebit etiam Latinis Scriptoribus 

talla qiicrdam accidissc monstrare, et calumnias immensas, ex 
adulteratione lihrorum suorumy Sanctis et probatissimis viris esse 
commotas. Et ne quid apertaj credulitati desit, 7-es qiice dnt 
adhiic memorice nostrce retexam, quo testimonii Veritas neminem 
iateal." Int. Operr. spectt. ad Orig. Tom. IV. p. 53. b. 

^^ Thus much is apparent from the controversy between Ru- 
finus and St. Jerome, on the adulteration of Origen's works ; 
Rufin. de Adult, libror. Orig. p. 50. sqq. S. Hier. Apolog. adv. 
Ruffin. Lib. II. capp. iv. v. p. 244-. sqq. The charge of Ruffi- 
nus is expressed in the follov.ing words ; Rufin. ib. p. 50. b. 
*' Et quamvis quamplurimi sint ex veteribus in quorum libris 
hujuscemodl depi-ehenditur adulterium, paucorum tamen sufficit 
adhibere teslimonia, ex quibus facilius quid etiam Origenis 
libi-is accideritj agnoscatur." After which he particularly spe- 
cifies Clement of Alexandria, and then quotes an Epistle of 
Origen, in which that early father utters the same complaint, 
of his works having been corrupted in his life time. St. Je- 
rome replies in the following terms, S. Hier. ib. cap. v. p. 246. 
** Fradmissix Jalsatione ab haereticis Apostolorum, et utriusque 

dementis, atque Dionysii, venit ad Onginem.*' The merits 

of this part of the controversy between Ruffinus and St. Je- 
rome, are summed up by the learned P. Huet, and decided in 
favour of the former; Origenn. Lib. II. cap. iii. § x. 



( 328 ) 

works have been printed are notoriously faulty^*; 
and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own 
corruption, by their disagreement among them- 
selves, and their agreement with different texts and 
revisals of Scripture '^'. It is likewise indisputable, 

'^^ Rigalt. de Tert, Praef. [p. ii.] " TantI viri scripta 
legentibus, etiam baud mediocriter litteratis, occurrunt difficilia 
non pauca, sermonis et scripturse. Nam sermonis quidem Afri- 
cani superbia, doctrinarum ferme omnium dote pr£EStans, lec- 
tores sibi poscebat ad nutum attentissime sagaces. Posteaquam 
vero in longe alios incidit, mutari ccepit a quibus 7ion potuit 
capi : et spurias dictiones pro legitimise adultercE manus inverere' 
cundia sparsit. Scripturse autem nativae ruina, auctoris verbis 
semel interceptis, ut obtrito corpora, sensum una quoque ipsum 
et mentem profligavit. Sic pessimi correctores emendatissima 
jjerdidere. — Dira natio ta7n fcede Septimii nostri lihros^ adeo 
quoque pridem vexavit, ut jam falsi vetustas longi temporis praet 
scriptionem obstruat veritati. Quod si veterum librorum ap- 
pelles fidem, etiam veterwn librorum fide fahissimce lectione$ 
adseruntur. Nam sunt et libri veteres depravatissime correcti j 
neque ulla spes reducendae unquam veritatis, nisi tam veteres 
nanciscamur, yt sint omni correctorum antiquitate vetus- 
tiores.*' 

'^^ Fell. not. in Cypr. Lib. Testim. p. 17. " Sperabam qui* 
dera ex largo hoc quod in tractatu isto liabetur Scripturarurr\ 
spicilegio, ad Versionis Latinee quae Hieronymianam praecessit 
restitutionem, gradum aliquem praestrui potuisse. Et certe si 
modo sibi ubique constaret Cypriani textusy loca ilia quae a lec- 
tione vulgata discrepare deprehenduntur, pro Antiquce Versio' 
nis reliqidis non immerito haberemus. Sed cuxxv ea sit lectionum 
in MSS. codlcibiis varietas, ut plura simul occurrant quae a vul- 
gatis discrepent ; et in his quid a Cypriano scriptum fuerit, 
codicibus sibi ipsis non respondent ibus, minime constet : porro 
cum primorum saeculorum patres, in S. Scripturis laudandis, 
diversimode se habeant; curam hanc ceu tantum non deplorataiyj, 
Cf.mcmus. Flam, Nobilius, aliique viri eruditi, Tertiilliani, C^^ 



( 329 ) 

tJiat these fathers not only followed each other**, 
adopting the arguments '•^^ and quotations ^"^ of one 

jyrianiy Hilaril, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, et Augustini lectlones 
Scripturarum, ex libris impressis afFatim Ingerunt ; parum me- 
mores in codicibus MSS. rem aliter atqiie aliter passim se 
habere.'* 

"** The works of Tertullian opened a channel through which 
the peculiar texts, that were cited by Justin Martyr and St. 
Irenaeus, might be transmitted to St. Cyprian and other Latin 
writers. Tert. adv. Valentinn. cap. v. p. 248. " Mihi autem 
cum archetypis erit limes principalium magistrorum, non cum 
adfectatis ducibus passivorum discipulorum. Nee undiquK 
dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias, quas tot jam viri sanctitate 
€t praestantia insignes, nee solum nostri intecessores, sed ipso- 
rum haeresiarcharum contemporales, instriwtissimis voluminihus 
et prodiderunt et retuderunt : ut Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, 
ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum sophista, ut Irenceus omnium doctri- 
narum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster, virginis 
senectae, et christianse eloquentiae dignitas : giios in omni opere 
Jideiy quemadmodum in isto, optaverim asseqni." 

"♦^ Thus, Is. Ixv. 2. " I have spread out my hands all the 
day,'* is applied to our Saviour on the cross, by Just. Mart. 
Apol. p. 76. a. Tertul. adv. Jud. cap. xiii. p. 105. S. Cypr. 
adv. Jud. cap. xx. p. 44. Again, Amos viii. 9. " I will cause 
the sun to go down at noon," is applied to our Lord's passion, 
by S. Iren. adv. Hacr, Lib. IV. cap. xxxiii. p. 273. Tert. adv. 
Marc. Lib. IV. cap. xlii. p. 450. S. Cypr. adv. Jud. cap. xxiii. 
p. 46. In the same manner Is. Ivii. 1 . *' the righteous perish- 
eth, and no man layeth it to heart," is applied to the same 
subject, by Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 234. c. d. S. Iren. 
adv. Ila^r. Lib. IV, cap. xxxiv. p. 276. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. 
III. cap. xxii. p. 398. S. Cypr. adv. Jud. cap. xiv. p. 40. 

"^"^ Instances constantly occur of Origen following Clement, 
and Cyprian following Tertullian in readings, which are found 
in no manuscript or version ; Mat. x. 26. ii^lv yup In xExaAu/x- 

fAiVoVf ii>c ci7ioy.(xXv(pd*icrs7cciy t^ y.fVTTTov o » yvoj^'/iJ-sTOti Vldg. kTitf 



( 330 ) 

another; but that they quoted from the heterod(55t 
as well as the orthodox "^^ They were thus also 

Cleni, Oiig. Mat. vi, S3. >^ tocvtcc 'Traura TrpoarivJ^crETat vijusi, 
Vulg. nul Tiravra, x. r. a. ociTBira ra. [xeyuXx, >^ ru fAiKfci CyAV 
9Tpoar£^ria&rai' yC, aircXrB roc sTrnqoLVioCj oc ra I'Tiiyzix 'npoS" 
rE^rtOilxi v[/.7v. Clem. Orig, Euseb, 1 Thes. v. 21. fruvra, St 

roc (Av a'Tro^oKifxa'^ovTiCj to ol xaAov kccte^^ovtbc. Clem. oCKt/XOI 
T^a7r£<^tT«t 7tv£(J^cj «; tnv UavXe ^t^ap^rjv (puay.ovroq* Ilxvra ^oxi" 
ftoi^iTi TO kocXqv xaT£%£T£. Orig. Mat, vi. 13. «} /Lt^ 8tV£PEy)«»J? ^/:;taj 

St; wsipacr/xoi/. Fz^/o". ne nos inducas in teiitationem, id est, ne nos 
patiaris induci. T^rt. et ne nos j^aiiaris induci. Cypr. Joh. iii. 6. 
vnv(jt.x Ifi. Vulg. spiritus est, qicia Dens spiritiis est et ex Deo 
^atus est. Tert. Cypr. 1 Cor. vi. 20. ^o^.cc<jcx.t£ o^j rov Qiov h ru 
9u)yt.a.Ti. Vulg. Glorificate et toll/te Deum in corpore vestro. 
Tert. Glorificate et portate Deum in corpore vestro. Cypr. 
The two last readings are however found in some MSS. 

■'^ Origen expressly quotes from the Hebrew Gospel, decla- 
ring that he referred to it not as authority, but in illustration : 
in Mat. Tom. III. p. 671. " Scriptum est in Evangelio quodam, 
quod dicitur secundum Hebrseos : si tamen placet alicui red* 
pere illady non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem pro- 
positce qusestionis; * Dixit' inquit, ' ad eum alter divitum: 
Magister," &c. He thus not only quotes, but comments on 
texts of that Gospel, indiscriminately with those of the Scrip- 
ture ; Com. in Joan. Tom. IV* p. 64. a. lav o\ Tr^oo-itrcci tk tt 

fxe ii f.4«Try(: f.'.» TO ' Aytov YivBVfj,a sv jjao, tcjv Tfiy^uv ^a, >cj uTtivtyyti 
tKZ tU TO 0^0'; TO ixiyu Ga^iSf.' i'lrocTrofr.cru vruq iA,vi'xr,^ XprS to ^ioc 
tS Aoya yiyir/ii/Aiov Hviiy.ce. " Ayiov ilvon ^vvctrctr tavTct ^g t^ tSto 
» ^'y.?si7rov sf>j.-nnv:Txi. k. t. e. Another example has been already 
given bupr. p. 27i3. n. ^^^. Hence St. Epiphanius traces the 
reading of 1 Thes. v. 21. or Mat. xxv. 27. quoted supr. p. 329. 
n. ^^ to the heretick Apelles ; S. Epiph. Ha^r. xliv. p. 382. b. 

Ourwr yrjCQj (b.crw^ ipv £» t:? E:^'a^76^^«. ' VUicr^e ^ov.j/AOt TfaTrs^iTai.* 

which has been cited by a long succession of writers from Cle- 
ment to Clir^sostome. Conf. Orig. Tom. I. p. 912. b. 1. 



( 331 ) 

likely to transmit from one to another erroneous 
quotations^ originally adopted from sources not 
more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture*^. 
When a few of these readings were recommended 
by the successive adoption of different fathers^ they 
were easily transferred from their comments to the 
margins of particular manuscripts, and were thence 
transplanted into the text from the margin ''^7. New 

*^ The orthodox, In reasoning against the hereticks, fre- 
quently derived their authorities from those Scriptures which 
were acknowledged by their opponents. S. Iren. adv. Haer. 
Lib. III. cap. xii. p. 198. " Unde et Marcion et qui ah eo 
sunty ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas, quasdam qiiidem 
in totum non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam autem Evange- 
lium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, haec sola legitima esse 
dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt. Nos autem etiam ex his, quct 
adhuc apud cos custodiuntur, arguemus cos, in altera conscrip- 
tione, Conf. S. Epiphan. Hser. xlii. p. 310. b. An example 
of this mode of conducting the controversies maintained against 
the hereticks, has been already given from Tertullian ; supr. 
p. 147. n. «^ 

'^^ The following appear to be readings which have demon- 
strably originated in this manner ; Mat. x. 23. (piiysrz iU Trjy 
aKhfiv, Vidg, <pivys7£ sU rriv Iri^ccv xav s>t rccvins ^iuyicoai^ vfxoif, 
(^ivyBXZ eIs" rriv a,'K>>T,y, Orig* 1. 33. 22. al. (piiyirt tlq r-fiv aK^yiv, 
focv 5e fcv rr, c^KXri huncaaiv Cixais (fsi/ys/s iU rr,v aXXw, Cant. 
^svyiTE Els' r7]V krioaVy y.<p h tyJ ers'^a "^iJjKcoaiVy ttoXiv (psuysls 
its Trjv aXXijv. Grig, alibi. Act. iv. 25. o ^ta TOfjiuToq Aa/S*^ t5 

TTOii^Oi ffH iiTTUV, Vldg, ha. 'nVEVfJ.ofhs Uy'lH hx TO^XToq AjcjSJ^ t5 

'jTon^Q(; an il'Ttui-'. Didym, Syr. Copt, o t» 'no^pos ^/xa;v ha. zrvexJ- 
(xocJos dyls ro«.*To; Acc(Sl^ •7ra,i^6i; an tliruv. Vat. Alex. Laud. Syr.p, 
lb. iv. 31. IXaKuv rlv >^6yov — jtA£T<x '7rapfr,(ricc<;. Vldg. iT^a'Say rov Aoyov 
— (jt-iTa Tra^^Yiaiaq TTocvll ru ^IXovli •TTis'svsiv. Iren. Cant. Laud. 
lb. 32. y) Jta^S'iet k^ ri '^'v^o (/.la. Vulg. ^ xa^o^ta t^ 4'^%'' '/^»a, 
■)C^ bK yjv ^i&K^iais Ev.ajJToTs" bOcy.iV,. Cant, KXfh'cc >^ vj -^fx^ fj^ix. 



( SS2 ) 

revisals of Scripture we^e thus formed, which were 
interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts 
and fathers ^\ Nor did this systematick corruption 
terminate here ; but when new texts were thus 
formed, they became the standard by which the 
later copies of the early writers were in succession 
corrected ''^9. From such progression in errour, it is 

9C iiii ^v y^oo^iayjjs h avrois ris. Laud, lb. xv. 20. uTcix^ar^'^i-^ 

&av%Xs yivcs^oci, kripoLS (X'h 'TToisiv. Iren, Cant* Sahid. The 
variations in these readings, or the embarrassment which they 
create in the sense, sufficiently declare them to be interpola- 
tions of explanatory glosses taken from the fathers. Similar 
examples of interpolations of the Latin Version have been given 
supr. pp. 146, 147. nn. ^s et ^^. p. 127. n. 45. The passage re- 
ferred to in the last note, and inserted in the Verceli MS. after 
Mat. iii. 15. is traced by St. Epiphanius to the Hebrew Gospel. 
S. Epiph. Haer. xxx. p. 138. b. -h ^l ap%^ tS wap' avtoTq Et;a/1 

*^ The peculiar readings which have been pointed out in the 
Cambridge and Verceli MSS. supr. p. 127. n. '^^ p. 146. nn. 
*^ et ^'. 6:c. sufficiently prove them to be revisals, which have 
been made in this manner. 

"^9 The number of MSS. which we retain of St. Cyprian's 
works, em\bles us to verify this assertion, particularly in his 
quotations ; which occasionally conform to the three species of 
text which were published of the Latin Version. An antient 
MS. of his Book of Testimonies is preserved in the British 
Museum, Coton. Cal. A. xv. f. 41. I collated it in one of the 
longest and most remarkable passages which S. Cyprian has 
quoted, INlat. xxv. 31 — 46, and which he has repeated three 
times in his writings. Lib. I. adv. Jud. p. 51. Lib. III. Testi- 
monn. p. 59. De Operr. et Eleemm. p. 207. But while it 
differs considerably from the Brescia, Verceli, and Verona 
MSS. it agrees verbatim mth the modem Vulgate, It can b& 



( 333 ) 

evident that nothing but uncertainty can be the 
result, when we proceed to determine the antiquity 
of any reading or text^ by its consent with the pre- 
sent copies 5° of the works of the early writers. 

In fine, when this system is pushed to its neces- 
sary extent, it ends in establishing such paradoxes, 
as subvert, by their inconsistency, the principles of 
the system out of which they arise. On estimating 
the antiquity of any text, by its coincidence with 
the readings of particular fathers, whose works have 
undergone successive corruption; it necessarily 
happens, that when that text is most systematically 
corrupted, it possesses the best claims to be ac- 
counted antient. Such is the virtual concession 
which M. Griesbach is reduced to the necessity of 

therefore no matter of wonder, that Tertullian and Cyprian not 
only differ from themselves, but that they ocoasionally conform 
to different texts or recensions. 

^° Still more uncertain must be our ground when we pretend 
to determine the true readings of the primitive fathers from 
antient translations; for these were certainly adapted to the 
received text of the countries in which they were made. We 
thus find, that they frequently differ from the originals. A fe-.v 
€xaniples will illustrate this assertion. Mat. ix. 13. xaAc-crat 
^ixaiaj, a^^a <^^«pTa;^i?? £»? (/.f-ravoiav. Vulg. Bamab. vocare 
justos sed peccatores. Verc. Bam, Literpr. Rom. v. 14. t's-* 
Tfcf^ afjict^rrtrrccirx^. Grig, in eos qui non peccarunt. Vtdg^ Orig. 
Interp. Hence also we find the translation frequently contra- 
dicts itself, as it is rendered conformable to different texts j 
Mat. XXV. 41. qui prseparatus est diabolo. Gr. Vulg. Orig. his. 
quern praeparavit Deus diabolo. Orig. scp.pe. That the genuine 
reading of Mat. ix. 13. xxv. 41. is retained in the Greek Vul- 
gate, has been already made evident from the context of the 
iLilick Versign, supr.'p. 180. n. '^^. p. 1S3. n. *'°. 



( SPA ) 

making', in explaining his system. He Very freely 
admits, that neither of those texts on which his sys- 
tem is built, is consistent in itself^ \* as we might 
well conjecture, from the heterogeneous materials 
which enter into their composition. Nay more, he 
is forward to confess, that the manuscripts from 
which those antient texts were originally formed, 
were grievously corrupted^*. Reasoning from his 
own concessions, of course ihis corruption of the sa^ 
creel text must have preceded the times of Clement 

^* Griesb. Symbb. Critt, Tom. I. p. xxviii. *' Scimus enim, 
omnes Recensioues variis vicissitudinibus domesticisque casibus 
obnoxias, et procedente tempore, multis modis immutatas, aut 
cum ctliis recensionibus permixtas confiisasque,^* Id. Prole- 
gomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxviii. " Nulla Recensio 
in codice ullo jam superstite reperitur intaminata. Eo tem- 
poris intervalloj quod inter Rccenslonum origines et codicum 
liodie extantium natales intercessit, singuli codices Recensio- 
num omnium multifariam Jiiere corrupt i* Quilibet Jibrarius in 
apographo suo exarando sphalmata qusedam commisit ; erepse^ 
rirnt e margine, vel aliunde nova interjjramenta, glossary addiia- 
mcnta ; negligens et festinans scriba nonnulla passim oraisit; 
alterius Recensionis lectiones illatss sunt in alterins familm 
Ubros." Id. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxi. " Hinc nosm.et 
ipsi, quamquara utramque illam llecensionem [Alex, et Occi- 
dent.] magni, ut par est, faciamus, tamen in nostra Nov. Test. 
^ditione lectiones sexcentas Alexandrinas, et miUenas Occident 
talis vel prorsus damnavimus, vel improbabiles saltim esse pro- 
nuntiavimus ; iramo haud pancas lectiones in iiiriusque JRecen" 
&ionis codicibus obvias repudiavimus.'* 

5^ Id. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxi. " Ultra tamen fatemur 
nullam Recensionem a nxvis immimem esse, aut imquam fuisse» 
Nam ncc Alexandrina neqve Occidentalis ex autographo pro- 
fiuxit, sed uiraque ex apographis passiin interpolatis derivaia 
lest.'* 



( 335 ) 

and Tertuliian^ which are his earliest voiichen?^ 
and must be necessarily referred to the age which 
directly succeeded to the apostolical ^^ ! After the 
concession of this pointy it is difficult to discover 
what further objections remain to be made to this 
system. To me it appears, that the person would 
subvert M. Griesbach's theory to the foundation, 
who would prove, that this conclusion necessarily 
followed from the principles on which it was found- 
ed. That the sacred text should have been thus 
grossly corrupted at this primitive period, and yet 
have so far preserved its characteristick peculiari- 
ties to the present day, tliat we should be able to 
recover any just notion of it, is a paradox so mon- 
strous, that the man who maintains it, may^ 1 con- 
ceive, be left in unmolested enjoyment of his opinion, 
as not worth the pains of convincing*. 

Thus hearing the advocate of this system out, and 
reasoning merely from his own concessions, it is, I 
trust, apparent^ that no reliance can be placed on 
it ; as it rests on the credit of voucliers, wlio, by 
his own confession, are grossly and systematically 
corrupted. In fact, it requires but a slight ex- 
ertion of sagacity to discover, that the tlieory of 
sacred criticism must be absolutely inverted in that 

53 Id. Prolcgg. in Nov, Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxiv. " Poste- 
riorem hiinc textum, quern, post Clementem et Origineirfy Alex- 
andrini ac iEgyptii potissimum adhibuerunt ac disseniinarunt, 
non incommode Alexandrinum dixeris. Alter inde a TertuU 
liani tempore ab Afris, Italis, Gallfs alii'ique occidentalibue 
usurpatus baud inepta Occidentalis nomine insignlri po- 
tuit.'» . Conf. supr. p. 526. ii. ''\ ' 



( 356 ) 

system, which supposes the sacred text to have been. 
grossly corrupted in two principal branches, in the 
age which succeeded the apostolical. As it is im- 
possible to proceed a step, in inquiries like the pre- 
sent, without reasoning from some assumed proba- 
bilities ; it is difficult to conceive vfhat can be deemed 
probable, if the direct contradictory of what is here 
taken as true, be not considered morally certain. 
Assuming it as a fundamental principle, that the 
sacred text could not have been corrupted at a pe- 
riod thus early ; the text, of course, which merits no 
better character, must be referred to that early pe- 
riod, in subversion of the first principles, from which 
all our reasoning is deducible. It is vain to hang 
the authority of such a text on the testimony of an- 
tient manuscripts, fathers, or versions, in violation 
of this fundamental principle. Until we have esta- 
blislied the integrity of those vouchers, the principle 
on which we build must want stability. To take 
the consent of those witnesses as an evidence of 
their integrty, is to reason against the undisputed 
fact of their having been corrupted by one another. 
And to refer them, in consequence of this coinci- 
dence, to the primitive age of the church, is to act 
in forgetfulness of an equally positive fact; — thai 
since that early period, the sacred text has under- 
gone revisals, in which it was not merely liable ta 
interpolation, but positively acquired those pecuh- 
arities, which are now taken as evidence of its an- 
tiquity ^'^. We njay be indeed told, that a critick, 

5^ Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ^\ p. 100. n. ^^. pp. 14r— S3. 



( 337 ) 

who is moderately skilled in his art, well knows how 
to clear those obstacles ^^ But while ten lines of 
proof Would be worth volumes of such modest asser- 
tions, it seems to be rather inauspicious to the suc- 
cess of such undertakings, that they should com- 
mence, and proceed, and terminate, without any 
attention '^ to the changes which the text has posi- 
tively undergone, since the time of its first publi- 
cation. 

II. Such appear to be the most striking objec- 
tions which lie against the plan proposed by M. 
Griesbach for restoring the corrupted integrity of 
the canonical Scripture. As his fundamental rule ^^^ 
with which I am not in the least disposed to quarrel, 
is thus unapplied and inapphcable to his theory; it 
now remains that we should enquire, how far it 
may be accommodated to the principles of that, on 
which I have ventured to believe the integrity of 
the same text may be defended. To such a mode of 
defence, we may give the preference, not only be- 
cause it is least exposed to the exceptions of the 

'^ Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxx. ** Viri criticae artis 
henei^eriti ejusmodi maculas, quibus codices singuli polluti sunt 
nullo tiegotio abstergunt, comparatis inter se pluribus ejusdera 
Recensionis codicibus, versionibus, et patribus, ac adhibitis 
regulis criticis, qua^ interpolationes seriores et glossemata a 
lectionibus genuinis ac primitivis discernere docent." Conf. 
Prolegg. in Nov. Test. p. Ixiv. sqq. 

5^ Id. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxiv. " Origo 
variarum textus Novi Test. Recensionum, deficientibus docu- 
mentis satis vetustis ac testimoniis, historice dedurari nequitf 
nee hujus loci est, conjecturis defectum iUum sarcire.** 

^ Vid. supr. p. 315. n. ^ 

% 



( 338 ) 

objectour, but as it affords as advantageous ground 
as can be easily chosen, for vindicating the Greek 
Vulgate. 

Laying it therefore down as a principle agreed 
upon^ that the best witnesses of the integrity of the 
sacred text, are those which are most antient, and 
which deliver a separate testimony ; the main point 
of enquiry consequently is, where such witnesses 
may be discovered. After this difficulty is sur- 
mounted, an appeal must be made to their joint 
testimony, to decide the point in dispute, respecting 
the relative purity of the Palestine and Byzantine 
editions. 

The space to which our enquiries are limited, in 
seeking those antient and separate witnesses, is 
necessarily bounded by that tract of country, in 
which we are infallibly assured the Gospel was 
planted, and copies of the Scripture dispersed, at 
the earliest period. This consideration directly 
[ fixes our attention on the Syriack Church in the 
\ East, and the Latin in the West; as being wit- 
I nesses possessing, above all others, the necessary 
I requisites, of being antient and separate. Situated 
at nearly equal distances on each side of the Greek 
Church, which must be considered the natural wit- 
ness of the sacred text, as speaking the language 
of the New Testament; those churches are of the 
most remote antiquity, as founded by the apostles. 
The versions which they used, whether made in the 
apostolical age, or not, are confessedly more antient 
than any with which we are acquainted. 

The antiquity of these vouchers, is, however. 



( 339 ) 

determinable for a definitive^ and an immense pe^ 
riod. The old Syriack version cannot be brought 
down lower than the fourth century^ the Old Italick 
not lower than the third ; as both translations are 
quoted by the vn*iters who lived at these different 
periods ^^. Though both versions underwent con- 
siderable alterations at this period^ two revisals of 
the Latin version having been published^ by St. Eu- 
sebius^ and St. Jerome, and probably of the Syriack 
version also ^^, by some unknown persons : it is 
probable, that both retained most of the charac- 
teristick peculiarities which distinguished them, 
when they were originally published. But this 
point will be placed beyond mere conjecture, by 
the consent of those versions with the Greek Vul- 
gate, when it is rendered apparent, that they were 
neither corrected by it, at that time, nor at any sub- 
sequent period. For assuming this to be the case, 
there can be no mode of accounting for their agree- 
ment among themselves, but by supposing them to 
preserve their conformity to the common source 
from whence they have respectively descended. 

The antiquity of these versions being not 
less remote than the fourth century, it follows, 
of course, that they must be separate witnesses; 
as far, at least, as they are coincident with the 
Greek Vulgate. For let us assume, that they have 
been corrected by each other; and either the 
original, or one of the translations, must be con.^ 
sidered the common source of their agreement. 

5' Vid. supr. p. 25. n. *'. pp. 70, 71. 

5^ Vid. supr. p. 49. n. ^. p. 82. n. ^6, 
22 



( 340 ) 

But that the Vulgar Greek, with which we are at 
present concerned, could have been corrupted from 
either of those versions, is a supposition so utterly 
improbable, as not to deserve a moment's consi- 
deration. The point before us consequently admits 
of no alternative, but that it must be the source of 
the agreement of the original and these translations; 
admitting that they have had an immediate influ- 
ence on each other. The antiquity, however, of 
both versions, renders it wholly impossible that they 
could have been new-modelled by this text. 

According to the principles of our opponents, the 
vulgar text, or Byzantine edition, had scarcely an 
existence in the fourth century ^°, when those ver- 
sions were generally received. It is therefore 
utterly impossible, that at that period it could be 
taken as the model, by which they were corrected ; 
unless indeed the point be conceded, which is the 
main object of this inquiry to evince, that the vulgar 
Greek is of the most remote antiquity. 

The fact, however, is, that so enlightened was 
that age, and so intimately are we acquainted with. 
its history, that we can give a clear and consistent 
account of every considerable change, which the 
sacred text underwent, at the same period. Chris- 
tianity then assumed a new form, under the Empe- 
rour Constantine, in becoming the established relir 
gion. Under the auspices of this monarch, a new 
>revisal of the sacred writings was published by Euse- 

*° Vid. supr. p. 126. n. *°. Conf. Griesb. Prolegomm. in Non 
Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxv. 



C 341 ) 

bius ; to the influence of which we must impute al- 
most every considerable change which the text 
underwent in the original or in translations^'. The 
extension of Christianity about this period, added 
to the list of Versions, a Gothick and Ethiopick, if 
not an Armenian and Arabick, translation ^\ Re- 
visals of the Old Italick and Syriack, undertaken in 
the same century, produced the Latin Vulgate and 
Jerusalem Syriack. The agreement of these ver- 
sions with each other, and with the Greek ma- 
nuscripts, imported into the West from Palestine, 
and divided by the sections of Eusebius^', enables 
us very clearly to determine his edition, which was 
authorised, from the reign of Constantine to that 
of Theodosius ^'^. As the Syriack and Italick prjo- 
vinces were exposed to the same casualties ^^, 
which destroyed the sacred books as far westward 
as Britain ^^ ; the versions which were generally re- 
ceived in those regions, most probably underwent 
some change at this period. But this change pro- 

" Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. 322. sqq. 

'* Vid. supr. p. 48. n. \ p. 322. sqq. 

*^ Griesb. Prolegoram. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxiv. 
Hie [textus Alexandrinus] cum EvangeJiorum Codicibus C, 
L, 33, 102, 106, et (in postremis Matthaei capitibus, Marco, 
Luca, et Joanne) Vaticano B, versionibus Coptica, j^thiopica, 
Armenica, Syra Philoxeniana, et allegationibus Eiisebii, &a — 
concinere solet.'* 

^* Vid. supr. p. 29. n. *». p. 152. n. '°°. 

*' Such is Eusebius's express declaration, as quoted supr. 
p. 295. n. ^^^ ^j' oXns 'AIy^7r7«, Iv^lxs n t^ rut uw «y«TeA?s 
^ x:5xAi; /xjp^^i to 'IaXv^ucov }t\iu.»t 

^^ Vid. supr. p. 27. n, 46. 



( 342 ) 

ceeded not from the Byzantine^ but the Palestine 
text. And we consequently find^^ that the revisal 
of Eusebius, has had some influence on the Old Ita- 
lick and Syriack ; as both versions agree with the 
Palestine text, in omitting some remarkable pas- 
sages ^^. But this consideration does not affect the 
main point in dispute; that those versions are 
wholly free from the influence of the Byzantine 
text : admitting which to be the case, it must follow, 
that they are separate, as we have seen, they are 
antient witnesses. 

As the influence of Eusebius's text, and the au- 
thority of those Emperours who favoured the Arian 
heresy, render it next to impossible that the Byzan- 
tine text should have had any effect on the Old 
Italick and Syriack versions, at this early period^ 
the history of those versions, and the state of the 
Latin and Syrian Churches, render it wholly impos-> 
sible^ that the vulgar Greek should have attained, 
at a subsequent period, such influence over the Ori- 
ental and Western versions, that it should be taken 
as the standard by which they were corrected. 

The case of the Western version may be sum- 
marily decided. At the close of the fourth century 
it was revised by St. Jerome; and the extraordi- 
nary reputation of that learned father, renders the 
supposition not merely improbable, that any person 
would undertake to do over again, what he had so 
ably accomplished ; but absurd in the extreme, that 
such a person would complete' the task, without 

*'' Vid. Fupr. p. S5. sqq. 



( 343 ) 

availing himself of the improvements made by St, 
Jerome. This^ however, has not been the case, 
with the text of the Brescia manuscript, which I am 
alone concerned in defending ; as it contains those 
errours of the primitive Latin version, which were 
corrected in the modern Vulg'ate^^ These charac- 
teristick marks, and some others, which have been 
already pointed out^^, very decisively evince, that 
the text of this manuscript cannot be brought lower 
than the close of the fourth century. 

The case of the Syriack version is not involved in 
greater difficulty. As the Peshito, or Syriack Vul- 
gate, is the received text of the two great sects into 
which this Church is divided'**; it is impossible that 
any general corruption of this text could have taken 
place since the year 451, and the meeting of the 
Council of Chalcedon. After this period, those re- 

C8 Vid. supr. p. 166. n. "^ sub fin. 

*' Vid. supr. p. 173. sqq. p. 181. sqq. 

'^^ Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. xiii. p. 89. 
§ 3. " Praeter hanc Versionem Syriacam, quam Simplicem et 
Antiqnam appellant Maronitce, qua sola in Divinis publice utun* 

tur, aliam etiam habent recentiorem ex Graeco expressam, 

tarn Vet. quam Nov. Testamenti." Id. ibid. p. 92. } 3. " De 
Versions Syriaca testatur Sionita, quod ut semper in sujmna 
veneratione et auctoritate habita erat apud omnes populos, qui 
Chaldaica sive Syriaca utuntur lingua, sic publice in omnibus 
eorum ecclesiis antiquissimis, constitutis in Syria, Mesopotamia, 
Chaldaea, i^gypto, et denique in universis Orientis jjartibus, 
dispersis ac disseminatis, accepta et lecta fuitJ* Having speci- 
fied the Nestorians and Jacobites, he subjoins ; " ex hoc cal- 
culo liquet pracipuas per totum Orientem christianorum ecclesiaSf 
longe lateque propagatas, Script uras et fyfficia sacra lingua 5v- 
riaca legere et cekbrare.^' 



( 344 ) 

ligious differences, which had commenced under 
Ibas, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and Theodorit^', 
and which were widened under Barsumas, Philox- 
enus, and Severus^% rapidly spread through the 

" Beth-arsem. ap. Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Tom. I. p. 203. 
** A Theodoreto [Nestorianum errorem] accejnt Ibas, qui praeter 
alias multas blasphemias, quibus praefatos magistros suos ad 
amussim imitabatur, istam in quadam sua oratione adjecit 
dicens, * Ego Ibas nequaquam invideo Christo, qui Deus factus 
est : nam Deus appellatus est, quum homo esset mei similis, et 
ejusdem mecum naturae." Quapropter anathematis sententia 
lata fuit in Ibam, et Theodoretum Cyri, unacum omnibus 
eorundem sociis et sectariis. Id. ibid. p. 204?. " Ab Iba Nes- 
torianum errorem accepit Mares quidam ex urbe Hardeschir ; 
atque inde ccepit Persarum regio Nestorianismo mjici per IbcB 
epistolasj et per magistrorum ejusdem Orationes atque Commen- 
taria (Nestorii nimirum, Theodoreti, Theodori Mopsuesteni, ac 
Diodori) quae in Syrorum sermonem convertebantur.'* Conf. 
Assem. Dissert, de Syris Nestoriann. } ii. Bibl. Orient. Tom, 
III. p. Ixix. 

'* Asseman. Dissert, de Monophysitt. § ii. Bibl. Orient. Tom. 
II. p. i. " In Oriente Barsumas Archimandrita, qui Conci- 
liabuli Ephesini pars baud exigua fuit, Syrorum enim niona- 
chorum nomine ei interfuit, postquam a Concilio Chalcedo- 
laensi justam damnationis sententiam excepit, in Syriam regres- 
sus, eandem hceresim popidarihus suis propinavit : nee iis dum- 
taxat, sed et Jinitmis Armenis, ad quos Samuelem discipulum 

suum misit . Atque haec fuere Monophysismi initia in 

Syria, Mesopotamia, et Arabia; auctore scilicet Barsuma, 
ej usque discipulis, qui eandem plane cum Eutyche opinio- 
nem tenebant." Id. ibid. p. iii. " Ad Syros quod spectat, 
licet iis Barsumae Eutychisque sententia ab initio placuerit, 
hanc tamen paulo post rejecerunt: quando nimirum Philoxenus 
Xanajas Mabugi sive Hierapoleos episcopus, et Petrus Gnapheus 
Antiochence sedis invasor, nee non haeretici Imperatores, Zeno 
atque Anastasius, aliud ejusdem temperamentum per Orientem 



( 345 ) 

East^ from Edessa and Antioch, to Arabia, Mesopo- 
tamiaj and Armenia. It is therefore wholly incon- 
ceivable, that both sects should agree in correcting* 
the received text 7^; or that one of them, having 
introduced any change into that text, could prevail 
on the other to accept it as the authorised version. 
During the period which intervenes between this 
early age, and that in which Eusebius revised the 
original Greek, it is equally inconceivable, that any 
other Greek text but the Palestine, could have had 
any influence on the Syriack translation. The in- 
ternal evidence of the later Syriack version, which 
was made under the auspices of Philoxenus^^, by 
whose exertions Eutychianism was established in 
Syria, clearly proves, that the influence of the Pa- 
lestine text had continued during the whole of this 
period ; as that version corresponds with the Pales- 
tine text 7^; where the vulgar Syriack corresponds 
with the Byzantine. During the reigns of the elder 
and younger Theodosius, which nearly occupy the 
space of time intervening between the years 400 and 
450, it is not possible to conceive how the Byzantine 
text could have acquired such authority in Syria, 
as to influence the authorised version. Previously 
to that period, the preponderancy of the Arian fac- 

disseminarunt, Severus vt eandem sectam stahiliret, pluriraum 
operae contulit : cujus studium aemulati sunt diversarum Syrice^ 
Cilicicu, Mesopotamice, et Capadocice urbium episcopi^" &c. 

7? Vid. supr. p. S43. n. ^°. 

'* Vid. supr. p. 77. n. 5°. 

'' Vid. supr. p. 34?1. n. "^^ 



( 3^6 ) 

tion in tills country ^^ rendered it wholly impos- 
sible, that any text should have prevailed over the 
edition of Eusebius, whose interests were identified 
with those of that heresy. 

It is indeed true, that the Emperour Charlemagne 
undertook the correction of the Latin translation by 
the Syriack and Greek ^^; from whence it may be 
conceived, those versions have acquired a resem- 
blance, which cannot be deduced from their com- 
ttion original. But we have only to remember that 
the correction of the former version was undertaken 
in the middle of the eighth century, and that the Vul^ 
gate of St. Jerome became the authorised text from 
tiie middle of the sixth ^%- in order to discover that 

^'5 At the time when the Emperour Valens published an edict 
against the orthodox, shortly after the death of St. Athanasius, 
Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xvii. p. 232. 1. 26. 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VL cap. xviii. p. 240. 1. 9. the follow- 
ing description is given of the state of Syria ; Sozomen. ibid, 
cap. xxi. p. 243. 1. 45. 2v^ia. ^e ^ roi 7re§<S e^vo}, >ej ^aXtra 5 

ttruf ruv roc 'Aqda (f>§ovHVTa;v, o^ ras exxXyi^/ay exovrcov. 
Under Constantius and Valens the same historian declares, they 
became thus numerous and powerful; Id. lb. Lib. VII. cap. vi. 
p. 284. !• 8* «T* ^^ ^"^o' ['* 'Agitai/o*] wXJiSo? ovln; U T?5 KuvrotvTut 
KOtl 'OYaXti'lo? poTT^S a^dn^ov <7VvioM, 'rr^i ©£« «at tsffiuq avrS 
hf^oaix ^it\ifov%. In the first consulship of Gratianus and The- 
odosius, they are represented as having possession of every 
church in Syria, without the precincts of Jerusalem ; Id. Ibid, 
cap. ii. p. 280. 1. 17. £' Tarw ^l it'hh 'hfoj-oXv(A.uy, hi ruy uvai 
rri9 ioj £xxX'-5aiw» o» ra Afiia (pfovai'lef h^^THv. Conf. SUpr. p. 29. 

77 Vid. supr. p. 21. n. '^ 
^8 Vid. supr. p. 33. n. 'K 



( 347 ) 

this consideration does not affect the main point in 
dispute, which is confined to the primitive Latin 
version. It may indeed account for some resem- 
blances, which the old Syriack bears to the modern 
Vulgate, and to those manuscripts on which the 
latter version has had some influence"; but it has 
little relevancy to the pure copies of the Old Italick, 
and none whatever to the Brescia manuscript, which 
is free from that influence. At all events, however 
adequate such a supposition may be deemed to ac- 
count for the affinity of the Latin and Syriack ver- 
sions; it is wholly inadequate to account for that 
of the Syriack translation and the original Greek ; 
which are the witnesses whose integrity I am par- 
ticularly employed in defending against any charge 
which may affect their integrity, as forming separate 
witnesses to the text of Scripture. 

Regarding, therefore, the subject before us in 
every view, and judging of it by the light reflected 
on it from the history of the text and versions of the 
New Testament, it as certainly appears, that the 
primitive Syriack and Latin versions are ancient 
and separate witnesses when adduced in favour of 
the Byzantine Greek; as that the later Western 
and Oriental versions, which are cited in support 
of the Alexandrine text, derive their common affi- 
nity from the immediate influence of the Palestine 
text, as revised by Eusebius. 

Here therefore we may lay the foundation of the 
defence of the Greek Vulgate : in asserting that the 



7» Vid. supr. p. 22. conf. p. 20. n. 



35 



( 348 ) 
Latin and Syriack versions^ to which an appeal is 
now to be made^ on the verbal integrity of the text^ 
are ancient and separate witnesses. 

The bond of connexion by which every part of 
the system^ which rises upon this foundation^ is held 
together^ is the connected testimony of tradition. 
Whether we consider the original Greeks or the 
two versions^ which are the witnesses of its inte- 
grity, the evidence of these vouchers is held toge- 
ther by this connecting principle^ for the immense 
period of fourteen centuries ^°. From the very con- 
cessions of our adversaries, it appears, that the 
vulgar text of the Greek, the Latin, and the Syriack 
Church, has existed for the whole of that time ^'. 
As the tradition extended far above this period, it 
is implied in the very nature of this species of evi- 
dence, that it could not have sustained any consi- 
derable change during the earlier part of that term; 
unless from the operation of some powerful cause, 
and for a very limited time. It is wholly inconceiv- 
able, that any age would accept a text, transmitted 
by their immediate predecessours, having weaker 
evidence of its integrity, than their predecessours 

•° Vid. supr. p. lU, 

** Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. Ixxv. " Hi 
omnes [Codd. A E F G H I] in Evangeliis cum its fere Pa- 
tribus (quantum ex imperfectis horum collationibus colligere 
licet,) qui sceculo quarto exeunte quintoque et sexto in Grsecia, 
Asia Minore, et provinciis vicinis floruere, fuitque haec Recen- 
sio, quam Constajitinopolitanam hinc nominave licebit." That the 
Latin and Syriack version are equally antient, may be seen on 
referring to the authorities already cited s supr. p. 25. n. *^ 
p. 70. n. 



( 349 ) 

had, in adopting it from those who preceded them. 
This reasoning" is applicable to the present age, and 
may be applied to every age which has preceded, 
until we ascend from our own times to those in 
which the tradition commenced. The testimony of 
tradition is thus adequate to its own vindication; 
and admitting its integrity to be thus unimpeachable, 
we must thence necessarily infer the integrity of 
the text which it supports. This mode of reason- 
ing, which is true in theory, may be easily verified 
in fact. By the destruction of the sacred books in 
the persecution of Dioclesian, and the publication of 
a new text under Constantine ; the course of tradi- 
tion was interrupted in the region occupied by the 
Greek, Latin, and Syriack texts. Yet, though 
these causes must have powerfully operated to turn 
the stream in a new direction, it speedily recovered 
its natural course. In forty years, the traditionary 
chain was re-united, and the vulgar Greek restored 
at Byzantium^*. The Latin and Syriack texts, as 
existing merely in a translation, and consequently 
as separated from the parent source, had greater 
obstacles to surmount, in regaining their original 
tenour. The immediate authority of St. Jerome 
and Eusebius in the different regions where the La- 
tin and Syriack were received, must have also given 
these versions a stronger bias towards the Palestine 
text, than to the Byzantine. Yet against the ope- 
ration of these causes, the influence of tradition in- 
sensibly prevailed; and notwithstanding the near 

** Vid. supr. pp. 123, 12'i. 



( 350 ) 

alliance between these versions and the former text, 
they possess a close affinity to the latter ^^ Now, 
as we have just seen^that this relationship cannot be 
in the collateral degree^ but in the hereditary line, 
since those versions have not been corrected by the 
vulgar text ; the affinity sufficiently proclaims how 
far they are supported by the authority of tradition, 
as it is only through it, that they can possess an alli- 
ance to the Greek Vulgate. 

The foundation of the system which it is my ob- 
ject to establish, is, therefore, I trust, not less securely 
laid, than the connecting principle, by which it is 
held together, firmly cemented. But the same 
strength and consistency will, I hope, be found to 
exist in the materials which are employed in the 
superstructure. And in evincing this point not less 
than the preceding, sufficient is granted us, in the 
concessions of our opponents, to bear out all our 
deductions. 

With respect to the evidence of Manuscripts, 
on which our main dependance is rested, it is not 
disputed, that they are faithful to the tenour and 
testimony of tradition, as far as it extends. Through 
the fourteen centuries, for which the vulgar text has 
confessedly existed, they agree with one another ; 
and though their number is proportionably multi- 

*3 Griesb. ibid. p. Ixxv. " Nulli harum recensionum [Occi- 
dent. Alexandr. Contantinopol.] Syriaca Versio, prout quidem 
typis excusa est similis est, verum nee ulli prorsus dissimilis est. 
In multis concinnit cum Alexandrina, in pluribus cum Occiden- 
tali, in nonnullis etiam cum Comtantinopolitaiia,** &c. Vid, 
infr. p. 352. n. »". 



( 351 ) 

plied with the progression of time, at the end of this 
immense period, this agreement is preserved**. 
Among the many concessions which are made us, 
this is not the least important to the establishment 
of the conclusion for w hich I contend. It is indeed 
true, that the Egyptian and Palestine texts are al- 
most wholly preserved in manuscripts which are of 
greater antiquity than any which preserve the By- 
zantine ; the Alexandrine, Vatican and Cambridge 
manuscripts conforming to the former editions in- 
stead of the latter. But while it can be never in- 
ferred from the antiquity of these manuscripts^ that 
the Egyptian or Palestine text is prior to the By- 
zantine ; it may be concluded from their preserva- 
tion for so long a time, that the manuscripts have 
not been in use, and that the text which they con- 
tain is of course unsupported by the uninterrupted 
testimony of tradition. From their antiquity, in 
fact, we can only infer that they were written at a 
period and in a country wherein the Egyptian or 
Palestine texts respectively prevailed; and from 
their preservation, that they have been regarded as 
relicks in the monasteries, in which they have been 
preserved '^ Yet, waving these considerations, the 
testimony of two of these manuscripts, and those 
which are apparently the most antient, may be fairly 
cited in favour of the vulgar text. With this text 
the Vatican manuscript is found to coincide in the 

«+ Vid. supr. p. 108. n. "^ p. 118. n. »*. p. 126. n. ^. ConC 
Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxii. 
*' Vid. supr. p. 18. n. ". p. 121. ct u, ^\ 



( 352 ) 

opening- cliapters of St, Matthew ^^ and the Alex- 
drine in the whole of the Gospels ^^r whatever be 
the antiquity of these manuscripts^ it is consequently 
subsequent to that of the Byzantine text. Such 
being the case with the oldest manuscripts with 
which we are acquainted, the Greek Vulgate has 
nothing to apprehend from the testimony of the 
Codex Cantabrigiensis. As this manuscript is di- 
vided by the sections of Euthalius^ it cannot be older 
tlian the middle of the fifth century ^^ ; but that the 
Byzantine text existed previously to this period^ is 
fully allowed us^^: by this concession^ of course, 
the testimony of the Cambridge manuscript is left 
little weight, when cited against the Greek Vul- 
gute. 

With regard to the testimony of Versions, our 
choice is principally limited to the Latin and Syriack 
translations. It is however sufficient, that in their 
evidence we possess the testimony of ancient and 
competent witnesses; and that their testimony is 
admitted, even by the concession of our adversaries, 
to be virtually on our side 9°. And however the in- 

«<* Vid. supr. p. 341. n. ". 

87 Vid. supr. p. 123. n.*\ 

«» Marsh. Michael. Vol. II. p. 715. n. "*. " If we argue 
therefore from the omission of the Ammonian sections, we may 
fairly conclude, that the Codex Bezce is as old as the fifth cen- 
tiiry. But as the writer of this manuscript inserted sections in 
the Acts of the Apostles, ijohich imply the previous existence of 
the Euthalian sections, I would not ascribe to it greater antiquity*' 
Conf. supr. p. 85. n. ^^. 

«9 Vid. supr. p. 34-8. n. «'. 

^ Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. Ill, p. Ixr, 



( 353 ) 

trinsick weight of this evidence may be disputed, its 
momentum is encreased by the comparative light- 
ness of the testimony by which it is counterpoised. 
The Coptick, and later Syriack, the Ethiopick, Ar- 
menian, and Gothick versions, which are the natu- 
ral allies of the Palestine text, cannot stand in com- 
petition with the old Italick, the antient Syriack 
and the Vulgate, which are the unbiassed witnesses 
of the Byzantine Greek. That the former versions 
should possess an affinity to the corrected text of 
Eusebius instead of the vulgar Greek, has been 
owing to circumstances which have been already 

" Recentior quidem Vulgata quippe quae multis in locis ad 
junior es Codices GrcBcos reficta est, quod Syriacce etiam acci' 
disse arbitror,'^ &c. We are here agreed on the fact, that the 
Vulgar Latin and Syriack Versions correspond with the multi- 
tude of modern MSS. which contain the Vulgar Greek ; but 
completely at issue as to the cause of this agreement. M. 
Griesbach supports his assumption by the argument contained 
in the word " arbitror ;" the force of which I leave to be ap- 
preciated by his disciples. I have already stated what appears 
to me to amount to a proof, that the old Syriack Version could 
not have been thus corrupted from the modern Greek : and as 
much might be advanced to prove, that the charge of corrup- 
tion from the same source is equally without truth, when ap- 
plied to the modern Vulgate. Admitting that the Latins were 
competent to the task of correcting their translation by the 
Greek, which is a supposition that I not only question, but 
shall undertake in the sequel to disprove ; it is, however, an 
absurdity too gross for me to admit, that they would undertake 
not merely to correct St. Jerome's version, but to recast it ba/ 
modern copies of the Greek, while he had expressly corrected 
it by the antient. In this single consideration, the aCrls Btpa. 
of M. Griesbach finds a sufficient reply. 



{ 354 ) 

explained^'. Their immediate connection with that 
edition^ if not their direct descent from it, renders 
the joint testimony of such witnesses entitled to 
very little attention ; when weighed against the con- 
curring evidence of witnesses like the Greek, Syri- 
ack, and Latin texts, which have not been yet even 
presumptively proved to have, had the smallest in- 
fluence on each other. 

With respect to the testimony of ancient FatherSj 
the Greek Vulgate is not left unsupported by their 
authority. Of those who preceded the Council of 
Nice, none but Clement and Origen of the Greek 
Church, and Tertullian and Cyprian of the Latin, 
have made copious extracts from Scripture^*; but 
sufficient has been already advanced to prove, that 
implicit reliance cannot be always placed on their 
authority. It may be however observed in support 
of the vulgar text, that in all points of importance, 
their testimony may be cited in its favour^'. We 

^» Vid. supr. p. 322. sqq. 

^^ The controversies of Justin Martyr, as directed against 
the Jews and Pagans, are necessarily void of references to au- 
thorities, which the Christian Apologist's adversaries did not 
acknowledge. Of St. Irenaeus's quotations, we unfortunately 
know no more than can be seen through the medium of a tran- 
slation, which has been obviously accommodated to a barbar- 
ous version, which prevailed in the West when his works were 
translated. 

'^ In the quotations extracted from Origen, and inserted in 
the Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 241. sqq. M. Griesbach has pre- 
fixed to the express references the mark §. and noted the read- 
ings of the Vulgar Greek which deviate from them, in his lower 
margin. After some search after these passages, I find, that 
out of the great variety of instances cited, Origen is observei 



( 355 ) 

may, however, appeal to still earlier witnesses, 
among the apostolical fathers, on the integ-rity of 
the Greek Vulgate. Though those primitive wri- 
ters are not copious in their Scripture quotations, 
they are often found to correspond with the Vii]p;'ar 
Greek, in readings whei'ein that text differs fi'om 
the Palestine 9*. With regard to those writers who 
flourished in the age which succeeded the Council 
of Nice; our adversaries are free to claim Eusebius, 
Basil, Cyril, and others, who followed the latter edi- 
tion, as the authorised text ; while they give us up 
their contemporaries, who favoured the text of By- 
zantium 9^ 

to differ from the Vulgar Greek, not in t'wenty places ; of which 
three only are admitted by M. Griesbach into the text of his 
Greek Testament. I subjoin the examples ; adding an asterism 
to the readings adopted by M. Griesbach. Matt. iii. 8. ^.a^itlv 
a^iov*. Orig, Kct^iTiis a|i»f. Vulg. ib. v. 32. fA.oix,£vBviieiu Orig. 
lA.oiXoio-^ocu Vulg. ib. XV. 34. va^a,fyi?^\si, Oiig, IxiMvcre, Vulg. 
ib. xvii. 20. j>$£v. Orig, ivrsv^ev, Vulg, ib. xix. 17. I^wraj- ve^l 
t5*, Orig, >^iyn<;, Vulg' ibid. 29. ^5ro^Aaw^ac^io^a. Orig, Ixaroy- 
tctit'ha.criovoi,, Vltlg. ibid, deest. yvvctT>ta, Orig, yvvaTxoc. Vulg. 
Mar. X. 46. t^x^rui, Orig, ipxovrui, Vulg, Luc. iii. 5. BvBeixf. 
Orig, ev^i7av» Vulg, Joh. viii. 38. a h^i^aocrt, Orig, o luouKan, 
Vulg, y'm, 42. t5*. Ofig* deest. Vulg. ib. xiii. 18. rUotu Orig, 
•Sf. Vulg, ibid. 26. /3a^}/a;. Orig, ^u-^us, Vulg, ibid. 30. II^aSj^ 
tv^vf, Orig, tv^eui l^yiTi^iv, Vulg. 1 Cor. vii. 34. Trvey^ar* kou 
truf/Lart, Orig, xca a-u[Aoiri y.eu 'rrnvyLXTi, Vulg, 1 Thes. ii. 6, 
fiiirm. Orig, riTnot, Vulg, On these readings it must be how- 
ever observed, that three only; those, namely, which are 
adopted by M. Griesbach, are unequivocal. On this subjeet, 
however, I shall speak more at large in the sequel. 

'* The authorities which support thiife assertion will be pro- 
duced in the sequel. 

95 Vid, supr. p. 348. n. »'. 

▲ a^ 



( S56 ) 

l^rom the premises thus laid down, we may pro* 
ceed to make the necessary inferences. Instead of 
the rules for determining the verbal integrity of the 
sacred text^ deduced by M. Griesbach from the tes- 
timony of the Alexandrine and Western recen- 
sions 9^; I would beg leave to propose the following, 
founded on the testimony of the Greek Vulgate and 
the Old Italick and Syriack Versions, viewed com- 
paratively with that of the Egyptian and Palestine 
texts, and the later Eastern and Western Ver- 
sions. 

1. When the Palestine text agrees with either 
the Egyptian or Byzantine, the coincidence can 
reckon but as the testimony of a single witness ; but 
when the Egyptian and Byzantine texts agree, they 
confirm the reading which they support, by thQ 
testimony of antient and separate witnesses. 

2. When the Egyptian and Palestine texts agree^ 
and yet dissent from the text of Byzantium ; the 
consent of the Old Italick or Syriack Version with 
the Byzantine Greek outweighs the testimony of 
the antecedent witnesses. 

3. When the Old Italick and Syriack Versions 
agree with the Palestine text, and dissent from the 
text of Byzantium; the consent of the later Eastern 
and Western Versions with the Byzantine text will 
adequately confirm a various reading of the Greek 
Vulgate. 

The reasonableness of these rules may be easily 
evinced from the foregoing observations. It roust, 

»* Vid. supr. p. 317. 



( 357 ) 

be here evident at a glance, that there is scarcely any 
witness from which the Palestine text can receive 
support; scarcely any but the Palestine, from which 
the Byzantine text must not derive confirmation. 
From the fundamental principles already laid down, 
it appears, that in order to entitle any witness to a 
voice, it must deliver a separate testimony ^7. But 
so universal has been the ascendancy of Eusebius\s 
text, which is identical with the Palestine edition, 
that not a text or version with which we are ac- 
quainted can be said to be free from its influence ^l 
No other text of course, not excepting the Byzan- 
tine, can appeal to its testimony, or afford it sup- 
port, as a separate witness. But as every text and 
version, which we know, w^as originally formed in- 
dependent of the text of Byzantium; as none of 
them has subsequently possessed any influence on 
it, and as it has had no influence on any of them ; 
the concurrence of any with this text must reckon 
as the testimony of a separate witness. A very few 
observations will now enable us to determine the 
weight of testimony which may be adduced in favour 
of a various reading from an application of the fore- 
going rules. 

1. When the Egyptian text agrees with the By- 
zantine, the Palestine edition must stand by itself; 
as there is no fourth edition with which it can be 
coincident. In this case, the Palestine text must 
want every requisite which can give it authority as 

97 Vid. supr. p. 315. n. ^ 

^ Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. 322. s^q^ p 340. sqq. 



( 358 ) 

an adequate witness. Of itself, it is destitute of the 
support of tradition ; and it wants, by supposition, 
the support of an antient and separate witness. But 
the weig-ht of this species of testimony is^ in this case, 
on the side of that reading which is supported by 
the joint evidence of the Egyptian and Byzantine 
editions. It possesses the authority of tradition in 
the testimony of the latter text ; and that of consent 
in the concurrence of the former 9'. 

2. When the Egyptian and Palestine texts agree, 
their consent can reckon but as the lestimony of a 
single Witness; as these texts have had an imme- 
diate influence on each oiiier. When opposed, in 
consent, to the Byzantine, the various readings 
which are avouched by the different witnesses ihus 
opposed to each other, are supported by equal au- 
thority. The testimony of either the old Italick, 
or Syriack version, if adduced on the side of the 
Byzantine text, must of course turn the scale in its 
favour. And the reading which is supported by this 
weight of evidence, possesses every thing requisite 
to prove it genuine. It possesses the authority of 

^ On the testimony of the Byzantine and Egyptian recen- 
sions, we may venture to restore the following readings of 
the vulgar Greek to their proper places in the sacred text; 
having been removed from it, in the Corrected Text, as re- 
vised by M. Griesbach. Mat. xxvi. 60. x) »« ivpov. Mar, vf. 
S^. I>3cr2{. lb. ix. 7. >^iy8<7ot*, lb. xii. 33. c Sjo?. Luc. vi. 
7*. auTov, lb. xiii. 3^. efjj/Aos.* lb. xvii- 4. liri as. Joh. i. 
26. ccvTCi er*y.* Ibid. 29. o 'lucivnq,* lb. iii. 2. ro» *Ina5>.* 
lb. vi. 43.5;'.* lb. xvi. 3. v/*r».* Ibid. I6.iyu. Those marked 
[*] are supported by other witnesses than the Egyptian and 
Palestine texts ; conf. n. ^°°» 



( 359 ) 

tradition in the Byzantine text; and that of consent^ 
in those antient and separate witnesses^ the Italick 
and Syriack Versions '°°. 

S. When the old Itahck and Syriack versions 
agree with the Palestine and Egyptian texts; the 
concurrence of these witnesses may be merely owing; 

*°° On the testimony of the Greek Vulgate, supported by the 
Old Italick and Syriack versions, we may venture to restore the 
following readings to their proper places in the sacred text, 
from whence they have been removed by M. Griesbach. 

JVlat. vi. 1. (Xir)[jLoavvytv, del. ^iKOtiocvv/jv, lb. xii. 35. rvi xac^»a?4'« 

lb. XV. 4. <rov. lb. xix. 19. a-v. Ibid. 26. er». lb. xx. 6. ufyta* 
lb. xxi. 33. TK. lb. xxiv. 36. /*«.+ lb. xxv. 31. ay»ot. lb. 
xxvii. 64<.f vvHToq, lb. xxviii. 20. a/x^K. Mar. i. 2. ifATr^os-^iv aa^., 
lb. V. 40. a.»ociisliA.svov. lb. vi. 2. 0T».4. lb. vii. 2. Ijji.sfA.'i^avro* 
lb. ix. 7. ^iyti<Toi. Ibid. 24. xvfis^. Ibid. 38. Iv. Ibid. 41. /Ay.4. 
lb. X. 40. /!*»f. lb. xii- 5. wa^»v. Luc. ii. 33. 'Iwo-^^, del. 
TTctr^f. lb. iiif. 19. <l>»^»9r9r«, lb. iv. 41. 5 Xf»ro?. lb. X.11. 
1^* v/xaj. lb. xi. 29. Ttf TTpofp^raf. lb. xiii. 35. «p»5/*o?. lb. xvi. 
15. Iriv. lb. xvii. 4. twi o-e.J Ibid, xviii. 3.tk. Ibid. xxii. 62. 
UeT^oq, lb. xxiv. 49. 'l5p«(7aAr)/iA. Joh. i. 26. avro^ srJK. 
Ibid. 29. 'Ia;avy„j. lb. vi. 43.* 45. h. Ibid. 58. to /x«»va. 
Ibid. 69.t t5 ^ivTo?. lb. vii. 26. a^»jSw?. lb. viii. 53. o-t;. xi. 
41. « ^v.» lb. xii. 26. x;\+ lb. xvi. 3*. lixTv. Ibid. 25. aAX*. 
lb. xxi. 25. a^rjv.* In the following places 'l^o-a?. Matt, viii, 
29. xiv. 25. Marc. xi. 15. Luc. xxiv, 36. Joh. i. 44.+ iii. 
2. iv. 46. xi. 45. In the following places, avroc, s. uvrS. s. 
avTu, s. avTOK. Matt. viii. 254 xii. 3.4. xvi:]:. 8. xix. 25.4. 
xxv. 44.+ Mar. ix. 26. Luc. vi. 7.t viii.f 21. xi.f 28. 
xvii. 9. xxiii. 25. And in the following places ;f«», Mar. x. 
14. 28.t Luc. vi. 28. xv.+ 19. xx. 31. Joh. iv. 36. xii"; 
26. Thus marked [fj want the testimony of the Primitive 
Italick {Brix.); but thus [:{:] supply its place with the 
revised Italick ( Verc. &c.) Thus marked [4-] want the testi- 
mony of the Primitive Syriack (PeshiL) ; but thus [*] sup- 
ply its place with the revised Syriack {S2/r» Philox.) All 



( 360 ) 

to the itifliience of Eusebius's edition *''' ; their joint 
evidence can then of course reckon but as the testi- 
mony of a single witness. The testimony of the 
later Versions^ for instance^, the Itahck or Syriack, 
when cited on the side of the Byzantine text, will 
of course turn the scale in favour of the latter ; and 
this weight of testimony will be fully adequate to 
support the various reading, which is of doubtful 
authority. In supposing the extensive influence of 
Eusebius's text, we easily account for the dissent 
of the older versions from the vulgar Greek; for 
this variation has proceeded from their being mo- 
delled after the former edition. But the consent of 
the later versions with the vulgar Greek, can be only 
accounted for, by admitting their agreement with 
the primitive translation, from which the old and 
later versions have respectively descended : to which 
also, it is presumed, they conformed previously to 
the influence of Eusebius's text, or to their having 
been re-cast into new translations. As the later 
versions have been formed on the basis of some pri- 
mitive translation, it is self-evident that many of the 
readings of the primitive version must be preserved 
in the derivative. It is possible of course, that the 
latter may preserve the primitive reading, while the 
former has undergone those changes by which it 
has been obliterated. And where the reading, which 
is thus preserved, agrees with the original Greek 

other readings, unless contradicted by these marks, are supposed 
to have the testimony of both Primitive Italick and Syriack 
\ersions. 

*" Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. S22, 



( 361 ) 
text, from which all translations have been made, 
the very coincidence is adequate to identify it as a 
reading of the primitive version. Though a later 
version is but a modern witness, it may thus deliver 
an antient testimony. Consequently the reading 
which is supported by this weight of evidence, pos- 
sesses every thing requisite to prove it authen- 
tick'°\ 

4. With respect to 'the Manuscripts which may 
be cited in favour of this system, it remains to be 
observed, that the weight of their testimony does not 
depend on the age of the copies, but on their num- 
ber and coincidence, as witnesses, and the antiquity 
of the text, which they support by their concurring 
evidence '°\ From the conspiring testimony of ma* 

'°* The following readings of the Greek Vulgate, which are 
rejected by M. Griesbach from the sacred text, though not 
possessed of equal authority as those cited in the last note 
but one, may possibly be genuine, on the testimony of the 
revised ItaJick and Syriack. Matt. v. 27.t tok ap%ator?. lb. 
IX. 13. £45 i^sravoiaivA lb. xvi. 20. 'l»}i75?. lb. XXvi. 9.4- to [.iv^ov, 
lb. xxiii. 8.f o Xpi^oc. Luc. iv. 8. vTraye oirio-u iJLH raT«^a.+ 
lb. xvi. 25. av, Joh. v. 30. irccr^h.^ lb. xvi. 16. ly^.f 
Thus marked [f] want the testimony of the revised Italick, 
though they possess that of the revised Syriack. Thus marked 
[4-] vvant the testimony of the revised Syriack, though they 
possess that of the Itahck. 

'°^ Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixix. 
'* JEtas testium non unice nee prcucipue judicanda est e membra* 
narum vetustate; potuit enim seculo v. c. decimo quarto ^ 
codice longe antiquissimo apographum fieri, quod exemplar 
suum exactissime reprsesentaret ; sed contra etiam quinto jam 
seculo, quo g codicibus hodie superstitibus vix unus aut alter 
referri potexit, jorceter tectum genuinum extitit alius, in quo lee- 



( 362 ) 

nuscripts^ versions^ and fathers^ it appears, that this 
text must have existed at least at the close of the 
fourth century. But no manuscript with which we 
are acquainted, possesses internal evidence which 
will warrant our placing it higher than this early 
period '°^ The testimony of none of course can be 
cited, as disproving the priority of the text which 
exists in the most modern of those manuscripts that 
conform to the vulgar edition. To establish the 
integrity of this text, is the main object of our en- 
deavours ; and if it be not evinced, by the concur- 
rence of those innumerable witnesses who agree in a 
testimony, which has been perpetuated for fourteen 
hundred years '"^j* the labour must be unavailing, 
which endeavours to prove it, by the coincidence of a 
few manuscripts, of which we cannot certainly know 
the origin. 

Beyond these considerations, and above this pe* 
riod, we cannot extend our positive proofs, in favour 
of the integrity of the Byzantine text; but I am not 
aware, how they can be extended above it, in favour 
of the Palestine edition. After examining the tes- 

tiones liaud paucae juniores in primitlvarum locum irrepserant. 
Jtaque text us ipsius pofiiis quam librarii cttas indaganda est. 
Haec vero judicatur e crebro consensu cum aliis testibus, (in 
primis cum Versionibus et Patribus,) de quorum aetate nobis 
constat," &c. Though this remark is assigned a very different 
application by its learned authour, yet, as expressing a general 
truth, which, I trust, is fully as applicable to the system which 
I labour to support, as that to which it is applied, I here quote 
it as authority. 

**=* Vid. supr. n. '°\ conf. p. 71. p. 350. 

^'^^ Vid. supr. pp. 114. 118. etnn. in loco. 



( 363 ) 

timony of versions and manuscripts as far as It ex- 
tends, our only appeal lies to the external evidence 
of the fathers. And here, it must be confessed, ap- 
pearances .^eem to set strongly in favour of the text 
of Palestine. The early writers w^ho have been 
cited in support of this text, as having followed it 
in their quotations ^''^ may be thought to outweigh 
the stro gest presumptive evidence which may be 
adduced in favour of the Byzantine. But the tes- 
timony of none of them but Origen reaches higher 
tlian the fourth century. After a little further in- 
sight into the nature of his evidence, we may be 
probably led to admit, that it is not so decidedly 
against the vulgar edition, as may be imagined. 

As the main object of the advocates of the Pales- 
tine text has been to rest the credit of this text on the 
authority of Origen '°7; my object has been to shift 
it upon that of Eusebius '^^ Sufficient, I trust, has 
been already advanced to prove, that the testimony 
of Origen rather identifies it as the text of Palestine 
than of Alexandria'"^: and consequently proves it 
the text of Eusebius, who revised the Palestine edi- 
tion "°. It is certain, that the works of Origen^ in 
which it is conceived to be preserved, were written 
in Palestine ; and that in the precipitancy with which 
Origen fled from the enmity of Demetrius'", when 

*°* Vid. supr. p. 316. 

»°' Vid. supr. p. 310. n. '°. p. 316. nn. " et '% 

'°' Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. 340. sqq. 

*^' Conf. supr. p. 8. sqq. 79. sqq* 

"° Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ^\ 

'" Origen alludes to the enmity of Demetrius, and his own flight 



( S64^ ) 

he sought refuge in that country, he was compelled 
to leave his books at Alexandria''^. Of the remains 
of his writings, which have descended to our times, 
only some fragments of the '* Principia"^'' and two " 
short books of his '' Commentaries/' were written 
in this city "'^. The last books of his expositions of 
St. John, and the whole of those of St. Matthew "^ 

from Alexandria, in the following terms, in a work which he 
began at Alexandria, but finished in Palestine ; Comment, in 
Joan. Tom. IV. p. 101. c. •>^ i^-^X?' 7^ '^^ 7reix7:% Toitx«, el >cj « 

'AlyvTrry x. t. 1. Conf. p. 102, a. et infr. n. "\ 

'^* Orig. ibid. p. 102. b. Vcr^i ^e ot» atro vo'KXviq 9rpoSt;/Aia? 
^evripav iciv-iyi» a.P-)(r:j ixo^h^ol^ £y.7a To/xy, ^\a, to ra TiqovTlixyo^tU- 
S"evTa v)^Xv, Iv r-ri 'AXs^iXv^^si^, 8X ol^' onus [j.y, sKxafJA^j^at. 

"^ These fragments are contained in the Philocalia, which 
consists of a cento of passages extracted from Origen's works 
by St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. The only passages of 
the Commentary on the New Testament which it preserves, are 
three fragments ; one fi-oni the Acts, and two from the Epistle 
to the Romans ; inserted by the Benedicth^e fatliers, Tom. IV. 
p. 4*57. and p. 462. n. K p. 580. n. ^ and in Dr. Spencer's edi- 
tion of the Philocalia. at pp. 32. 34. 90. ed. Cant. 1677. 

"* The third and fourth books of the Commentaries on St. 
John, which were written by Orlgen previously to his departure 
from Alexandria, vid. supr. n. "\ are lost ; witli the exception 
of a few fragments. Conf. supr. n. "\ infr. n. "^. 

"^ The last books of the Commentaries on St. John were 
undertaken by Origen after his arrival in Palestine ; vid. supr. 
|). *". But at the time they were written, the Commentaries 
on Matthew were not begun, as Origen sliews by his declara- 
tions when engaged in the former work ; Orig. Comment, in 
Joan. Tom, IV. p, 192, a. »cj xavT* (Ad kutcc oCvcx^yM £K TG vafd 



( S65 ) 

togellier with his treatise on Prayer*'^, and his reply 
to Celsus''7^ were written on his settlement in Pa- 
lestine. These last works, however, contain the 
only parts of his writings which possess any Scripture 
references ''^ from which we can discover the text 
that he followed in his quotations; the Philocalia, 
which preserves the remains of his '' Principles/' 
being miscellaneous in its subject, possesses no re- 
ferences to the New Testament, but those which 
have been already specified. 

zuxxiqor^ov, OTOiv sis- TO jcar^ Mar^aTov rz/xTv Xiym loh^, 

"^ Patrr. Benedictt. Monit. in Orig. de Orat. Tom. I.' p. 196. 
*' De anno quo hie de Oratione libellus scriptus est— id unum ex 
iisquaelegunturnum.23/' [conf.p.235. c.] "discimus,scriptum 
ilium esse, editis jam in Genesim Tomis. Cum autem octo solum 
priores in Genesim Tomi ante Annum 231, quo ex Alexandria 
urhe decessit Origenes, similiterque quatuor de Principiis libri 
post primum in Genesim Tomum conscripti sunt, merito cotti^ 
gimus librum ,ra^i l.v^., post Ongenis ex Alexandria discessum 
ducuhrnhmi esse, et quatuor ^s^l 'a^^.-^ libris esse poste- 



riorem. 



"^ The date of this work is determined by Eusebius, who 
fixes it to the year 249, when Origen had attained his sixtieth 
year, and was nearly twenty years settled in Palestine; Euseb. 
Hist. EccL Lib.VI. cap. xxxvi. p. 299. 1. 10. h r^,^ ^ £| 

fvfypu[xi/.alu (TtHarlsi, 

"* All the Homilies of Origen were composed in Palestine, 
after he had attained his sixtieth year; of these compositions, 
however, those on Jeremiah only are preserved in the original- 
Euseb. ibid. p. 299. 1. 3. Tors r,ru-^C^lp rcl If^.o.m ^.al. .V, 



( 866 ) 

The whole of the presumptive evidence, which 
arises from these preUminaries, consequently tends 
to prove, that the text which Origen followed, in 
his Commentaries, was the Palestine, not the Alex- 
andrine. The remark is of importance, as in form- 
ing a running exposition, he must have followed the 
text which was before him ; and he has indeed pre- 
fixed it in several instances to the comment "^ It 
is of importance also to observe, that in composing 
his Commentaries, he preserved a peculiar plan in 
his quotations, which he neglected in delivering his 
Homilies » *° : having followed the corrected text of 
his Hexapla in the former, and that of the Greek 
Vulgate in the latter compositions*". These cir- 

«'^ Vid. Comment, in Matt. Tom. III. p. 442. a. sqq, 
*** These Compositions are thus distinguished by St. Jerome ; 
Hier. Proleg. in Comment, in Ezech. Orig. Tom. III. p. 354. — 
*' scias Origenis opuscula in omnem Scripturam esse triplicia, 
Primum ejus (opus) Excerptay quce Greece r^oT^ia nuncupantur, 
in quibus ea quae sibi videbantur obscura, atque habere aliquid 
difficultatis, summatim hreviterque perstrinxit. Secundum i/o- 
miUaticum geniiSy de quo et prsesens interpretatio est. Tertiura 
quod ipse inscripslt To/>c«?, nos Volumina possumus nuncupare, 
in quo opere tota ingenii sui vela spirantibus ventis dedit, et 
recedens a terra in medium pelagus aufugiL** 

"* S. Hier. in Procem. Tradd. Hebrr. Tom. III. p. 451. 
" De Adamantio autem sileo ; cujus nomen, si parva licet com- 
ponere magnis, meo nomine invidiosius est ; qui cum in Homi" 
His suis, quas ad vulgum loquitur, Communem Editionem sequa- 
tur ; in Tomisy id est in disputatione majori, Hebraica veritate 
Stipatus, et suorum circumdatus agminibtis, interdum linguce pere* 
grince quxrit aux'dia,** The auxiliaries, whose assistance Ori- 
gen thus sought in his written compositions, were the Ebionite 
hereticks, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, who revised 



( 367 ) 

cumstances, being kept fully in view^ a few consi- 
derations will enable us to appreciate the weight of 
the testimony which he has borne to the verbal inte- 
grity of the inspired writings. 

In the first place^ the Commentaries of Origen, 
which are the main support of the Palestine text^ 
abound in references to apocryphal works and here- 
tical revisals of Scripture*". They were under- 
taken at the request of Ambrose'*^, who had been 
a convert from heresy ^^^, and who gave them to th» 

the Septuagint, for the purpose of doing away the strong ten- 
dency which that translation bore to the tenets of the Catho- 
licks. Nor was Origen ashamed of like associates in composing 
his Commentaries on the New Testament. In the earliest of 
these works, the Tomes on St. John, he constantly refers to 
Heracleon the Valentinian's Commentary on the same Gospel, 
and quotes from the heretical Scriptures as well as the cano» 
nical : vid. Hom. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 117. d. conf. infr. n. ***• 

'*^ Instances of this kind have been already produced ; supn 
p. 330. n. ^^, That they occurred more frequently in the 
original copies of Origen's works, than those from which our 
printed editions were formed, is rendered probable, from their 
being sometimes found in the antient Latin translation, though 
wanting in the Greek original ; a long extract from the Hebrevr 
Gospel, inserted in the Commentary on St. Mattheiv, may be 
cited as an example. Vid. Orig. Tom. III. p. 671. conf. Tom, 
IV. p. 289. n. b. Pamph. Apol. p. 18. a. 

'" Euseb. Hist. Eccl, Lib. VI. cap. xxiii. p. 287. I. 4. 

^§o7§oxra7f, a ruTq ^t» >^oyu}> xj 7ra6xy.>.v(rBcrni etvro f/.6vov, a^Aa x^ 

a(pBovula7on^ ruv tm%hluv p^op-yiaj:. Conf. Orig. Hom.iii Joan« 
Tom. IV. pp. S. b. 4. a. 

"* Euseb. ibid. cap. xviii. p. 278. 1. 19. Iv thtco xJ 'Afx^^oaioff 
to. rrjs '0TaXsv7jv» (p^ovuv ouciaSiCos, Trp; t^? vttI Opygj'tfj «r|g^* 



( 368 ) 

world without the consent of their authour; who 
lived to repent of the errours, which they contain- 
ed '*^ That compositions of this equivocal cha- 
racter^ and which have been notoriously corrupt- 
ed **^ should frequently deviate from the vulgar 
Greek, seems rather to convey a negative proof of 
its integrity. But Origen likewise affords the same 
text positive support,, in his inconstant readings; 
occasionally agreeing with the Byzantine text^ while 

^■voijAv'/ii «X'/i^£kaj IX£J3(;'^£i? — 7a t?s g>£xA>j<7<ar»'''3S o^^o^oliaj •fffOfU 

•"5 Vid. siipr, p. 10. n. ". 

"^ Orig. Ep, ad amice. Alexandr. Tom. I. p. 5. b. " Sed 
nihil mirum mihi videtur, si adulteretur doctrina mea ab inimicis 
meis, et tali adulterio corrumpatur, quali adulterio corrupta est 
Epistola Pauli Apostoli. — Talia ergo quaedam video etiam nobis 
accidere. Nam quidam auctor kereseos cum, sub praesentia mul- 
torum, habita inter nos fuisset disputatio, et descriptum accipiens 
ab his qui descripserant Codicem, qucB voluit, addidit, et quce 
noluit abstulit, et quod ei visum est permntavity circumferens 
tanquam ex nomine nostro, insultans et ostendens ea quae ipse 
conscripsit. Per quibus indignantes yj-a^/e^ qui in Palcestina 
$unt, miserunt ad me Athenas hominem qui acciperet a me 
ipsum authenticiim exemplar, quod ne relectum quidem vel re- 
censitum a me antea fuerat, sed ita neglectum jacebat, ut vix 
inveniri potuerit. Misi tamen, et sub Deo teste loquor, quo- 
niam cum convenissem ilium ipsum qui adulteraverat lihrum, 
quare hoc fecisset, velut satisfaciens mihi respondit, quoniam 
macrjs ornare mini disputationem illam atque purgare. Vide?e 
quali purgatione disputationem purgavit: tali nempe quali 
purgatione Marcion Evangelia purgavit vel Apostolum, vel 
<iua\[ successor ejus Apelles. This curious fragment is pre- 
served by Ruffinus, De Adult, libror. Orig. Tom. IV. p. 5K 
a. and is acknowledged by St. Jerome, Adv. Ruffin. Lib, IL 
cap. V. Tom, II. p. 246. 



( 369 ) 

he deviates from the Palestine ; nor can it be c6i*-» 
tainly concluded from his express references, thst 
the text which he used did not conform to the former 
edition "^ When due allowance is also made for 

'*^ Of the examples already cited, p. 355. h. ^^ as expressly 
referred to by Origen, there are but three, Mat. iii. 8. xix. 17i 
Job. viii. 42. which are not found in the Received Text ; two 
of which, Mat. iii. 8. Joh. viii. 44. properly belong to the Greek 
Vulgate, as existing in the greater number of MSS. : vid. 
Griesb. nn. in locc. Iri one instance only, of course, ddes 
Origen differ in his express references from the vulgar text : 
for in the remaining examples, he is obviously misrepresented^ 
when quoted against that edition. As M. Griesbach has been 
unable to find sufficient authority in the Greek MSS. for these 
passages, to assign them a place in his Corrected Text ; it 
would appear, that Origen in his express citation of these pas- 
sages, merely meant to give emphasis to the sense, without 
thinking of marking a variation in the reading. This is obvi- 
ously the case with Mat. v. 32. xv. 34. xix. 29. Mar. x. 46. 
Joh. viii. 38. xiii. 18. 26. 30. 1 Cor. vii. 34. 1 Thes. ii. 6: as 
will directly appear on turning to Origen ; Tom. III. pp. 647* 
509. 202. 735. IV. 315. 425. 441. 444. II. 644. III. 662. 
where those passages are respectively quoted. In Mar. vi* 3. 
X* 29. Luc. iii. 5. Origen 's object is wholly misrepresented, in 
conceiving him at variance with the Received Text. In op- 
posing Celsus, he declares that our Lord is no where called ai 
carpenter in the Gospels ; nor is he called so in Mar. vi. 3 : 
the Evangelist merely stating, that a question on this subject 
was proposed by the multitude, vid. Orig. Tom. I. p. 659. d. 
In reasoning on lb. x. 29, SO. he merely observes, that the 
Scripture declares, that those who " left houses- brethren, sis- 
ters, father, mother, iy//e,— should receive an hundred fold, now 
in this time — houses, brethren, sisters, mothers, children ;" 
thus omitting ** wife" in the second enumeration ; yvmTKO. is 
accordingly otnitted in the Greek Vulgate ; vid. Orig. Tom. L 
p. 284. c In mentioning iC^eiu? as the reading of Luc. iii. 4 

Bb 



( 370 ) 

the influence which his peculiar readings have had 
on the Palestine text, as revised by Eusebius; it 
seems to take from his testimony its entire weig'ht, 
in deciding the question at issue. 

When the testimony of Origen is set out of tha 
way, no further obstacle opposes the application of 
the foregoing rules, to the vindication of the vulgar 
edition. As the general integrity of this text is 
attested by vouchers, which render it absolutely un- 
questionable ; our attention is only called towards 
those passages which have been impeached on evi- 
dence apparently credible. This evidence has been 

or 5. he refers to the former verse instead of the latter ; as will 
be made apparent from Is. xl. 3. in the sequel ; and thus clearly 
supports the Greek Vulgate. In one solitary instance of course 
Mat. xix. 1 7. Origen's express references are opposed to the vulgar 
edition ; and this too is taken from a tract, which as lying under 
the bad repute of being corrupted, leaves us rather at a loss to 
determine, what was really Origen's quotation. Let it be further 
observed, that in this express reference, Origen's testimony 
is opposed to that of the Greek Vulgate on a point where this 
text could not have been possibly corrupted by the orthodox ; 
as the vulgar reading is manifestly less accommodated to their 
peculiar opinions, than the reading expressly supported by Ori- 
gen: and in its reading of this text the Greek Vulgate is not 
only supported by the testimony of those antient witnesses, the 
primitive Italick and Syriack Versions, but the express allega- 
tion of an antient father who lived in the next succession after" 
the apostles ; vid. Mat. xix. 17. ut. infr. pp. 372. 381. While the 
express testimonies adduced from Origcn, supr. p. 355. n, '', 
contain a sufficient proof that the Greek Vulgate and this early "^ 
father have not been interpolated from each other; the express 
testimony of Origen, when properly understood, contains an 
extraordinary proof of the verbal integrity of the vulgar edi- 
tion. 



( 371 ) 

toilected and embodied by M. Griesbach ; and oti 
the strength of it^ he has rejected several passages 
from the sacred canon^ as spurious. Of these pas- 
Sages^ however^ a very limited number are of the 
smallest importance ; eleven only affecting, and that 
in a remote degree, any point of doctrine or moralsi 
1 shall lay these, in the first place, without excep- 
tion, before the reader; adding the testimony of 
the Western Chufch in corroboration of that of the 
Eastern; and subjoining the express testimony of 
some writer, who, as living in the age which suc- 
ceeded the apostolical, must have written before the 
sacred text could have been corrupted. In deter- 
mining the present question, the testimony of the 
Syriack Church cannot be admitted as authority. 
Having been infected at an early period in the third 
century with the heresy of Paul of Samosata '*^, it 

'*^ Liberat. Diac. Breviar. cap. ii. p. 4. ed. Par. 1675* 
" Igitur Nestoriani dogmatis author, ut multi volunt, Paul us 
agnoscitur Samosatenus episcopus, &c. M. Reriaudot, in Praef- 
Liturgg. Orientt. having traced the Nestorian Heresy to the 
person from whom it derived its name, is thus corrected by 
M. Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. Tom. I. p. 204. In primis quis 
ilenodotio diselt, Nestodanam Ha^resim, in Constantinopolitana 
Dicecesi potius quam in aliis Provinciis incrementum habuisse?" 
quum et hoc ipsum qualecumque incrementum a Syris eo pro- 
fectis Haeresis Nestoriana acceperit, velut a fonte ris'ulum* 
Hsec enim in Syria ducentis ante annis, Paulo Samosateno Pa- 
triarcha Aiitiocheno auctore, primum erwperat, vicinas provin- 
ciis sua contagione afflaverat, ita ut Diodorus Tarsensis, et 
Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Pauli gentiles, deinde Nestorius 
ejusdem affinis, antiquum errorem potius quam novum praetu- 
lisse dicantur.'* The origin of Eutychianism is traced to the 
heresy of ApoUinaris/ into which extreme Eutyches fell in com- 

Bb3 



( ^^^ ) 

wiiolly lapsed into Ariauism in the fourth "^ ; and 
was finally rent in the fifth into the different sects of 
Nestorians and Eutychians'^°. High therefore as 
its testimony must rank, where merely the verbal 
integrity of the sacred text is concerned^ it can have 
little weight on the doctrinal. The Arabick nume- 
rals,, annexed in the subjoined examples to the tes- 
timony of the Latin church, indicate the different 
editions of the Italick version which support the 
prefixed reading : the primitive or Brescia text^ the 
revised or Verceli, and the new or Vulgate of Je- 
ix>me, being numbered in their order. An asterism 
is added to the readings adopted by M. Griesbach 
in his Corrected Edition. 

Mat. XIX. 17» 

i ^i itn-iv uvru, * T» /xt "Kiym Jesus autetn dixit ei quid me 
eoya^Qyi ^^«*i aya^oj, i\ i*.ri eTj o dicis honum? neiuo bonys nisi 
©2o:." Byz. Deus. ItaL 1. 

* r\ fxi ifcorxq wEp» t5 ayoc^i; quid me interrogas de bono? 
eT? ir^1 aya$of. JEg* Pal*, unus cst bonus. liaL 2, 3. 

Just. Marl. Apol. Maj. p. 63. d, i^ w^o-sxSokTo? a.lru T»yo?, »<J 

9 0£O;' TTQincTXi TTXiTX, 



bating the opposite errours of Nestorius : Liberal, ibid. p. 10. 
*' Quapropter apparet ex omnibus superius dictis atque pro- 
latis, a Paulo Nestorianos fuisse propagatos, et ab Apollinari 
unius natura? prfedicatores, ut sunt Acephali et Eutychiani." 
Vid. supr. p. 31'4'. n. '\ 

**^ Vid. supr. p. 169. n. "5. 

'^° Vid. swpr. p. ^U. nn. '' et '*. 



( 373 ) 



Mar. xiii. 32. 



cjpxq ih]q oioeVf u^s ol afytXci ot 
iv i^avZ^ b e^i o yto$", si //ij o 
Uxriip. Byz, JEg *. 

^ desunt, aJs o vlo^, PaL 



De die autem illo et hora nemo 
scit neque angeli in coelo, ne' 
que Jilius nisi pater. Ital. 1, 
2,3. 



S. Iren. adv. Ha^r, Lib. II. cap. xxviii. p. 158. — Dominus, 
ipse Filius Dei, ipsum judicii " diem et horam'* concessit scire 
solum Patrem, mamfeste dicens ; ** de die autem ilia et hora 
nemo scit, neque Filius , nisi pater solus,'* 



Luc. ii. 33. 

xj vjp c 'iuaY,(p xj h (A^TTp uvth" Et erat Joseph et mater ejus 
Sat/xa^ovTts tTTt Tor? Aa^»y.£>o^? mirantes de his quae diceban- 
weft ayra. Byz, tur de illo. ItaL I, 2. 

* irccTYip av7H xj h, (Ji.yi7'/ip, pater ejus et mater. Jtal, 3, 
jEg. Pal*, 

S. Hier. adv. Hclvid. — " Et erant pater illius et mater admi- 
rantes super his, quae dicebantur de eo'* — Licet tu mira impu- 
dentia hacc in Graecis codicibus falsata contendas," &c, vid. 
supr. p. 169. n. '^K 

lb. xi. 13. 

•I «» v[jiuf frovr^po) yTTapyovTE? Si cr^ vos cum sitis mall nos- 

<jV^alE ayaSa ^oijlccIcc h^ovai tok tis bona data dare filiis vestris : 

TEHvoif vixuvy Tiroo-u) ixa>sXov o nra,- quanto magis Pater de ccelo 

T^p tl «p«v5 d 3wcr£» Trnv^ob dahit Spiritmn Sanctum peten* 

ayiov' Tor? aWia-iv ocvtov, JByz*. tibus se. ItaL 1. 

A $uffti eiyx^Q}/ 56fA.x. jEg, dabit bonum datum. Ital. 2, 

4 ^'jcru irviv^a. dyx^ov. Pal, dabit Spiritum bonum. ItaL 3* 

Tert. adv. Marc, Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. p. 432. A quo Spiritum 
Sanctum postuhm ? — agnosce igitur et Patrem, quem etiam ap- 



( 374 ) 

pcllas Creatorem. Ipse est qui scit quid filii postulent. Nam 
et panem petentibus, de ccelo dedit manna ; et carnem deside- 
rantibus, emisit ortygometram ; non serpentem pro pisce, nee 
scorpium pro ovo. — Itaque et Sjpiritum Sanctum is dahit^ &c. 



lb. xxii. 43, 44. 

u(p^-n ^t aitZ afyfXo? aV hfocvH Apparuit autem illi angelus 



ivic^vuv avTov, Kj yivouevog tv 
iyivilo oe o Ih^w^ a,vre uat) •&^o/x- 



de ccjelo, confortians eum. Et 
fact us est in agonia, et prolix* 
ius orabat : Et factus est sudor 
illius, quasi guttae sanguinis 
decurrentes super terrain. 
Ital. 2. 3. 



desunt. Palf 



desunt. Ital, 1. 



Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 331. d. Iv ya.p toI? «Vo/ahj« 



— I>to£;^ojw.g%«y TJjy tS 



Job. V. 3, 4, 

i^ociviv iv T^ xeAv^/3i3$pa, x^ eTat- 
fMi7-0'6 TO t;^a;p. 9 dt '^rpuras iyi.&cci 
ftilai ttiv rotpx^igv rS vaccTogy vyiv)<; 

Byz.* ' 



— spectantium aquae motum. 
Angelus autem Domini des- 
cendebat, et movebat aquam. 
Et quicumque prior descen- 
debat in natatoria, samis fiebat 
quacumque tenebatur infirmi- 
tate. Ital. 2. 3. 



desunt. Mg- Pah desunt. Ital. 1. 

Tert. de Baptism, cap. v. p. 221. Angelum aquis intervenire 
si novum videtur, exemplum futurum praecucurrit. Piscinam 
Bethsai'dam " angelus interveniens commovebat ;" observabant 
qui valetudinem quaerebantur. Nam " si quis prsevenerat des- 
cendere illuc'' quaeri post lavacrum desinebat," 



( 375 ) 



Act. viii. 37. 

stvt H <l);xiw9ro4* £t virdaq l| Dixit autem ei Philippus : si 
oX>j5 T?j xa^^ta?, t'lar"'. aVoxp*- credis ex toto corde, suscepis. 
Siij ^£ eTtts* -TTtrst/fc* Tov yioc Ttf Respondcns autem dixit : cre- 
0cS £^ai Tov *l»3C7»i/ Xfirov, Byz, do in Christum Filium Dei. 

ItaL 2. 3. 



desunt. Val* 



S. Iran. adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. xii. p. 196. t»to» eTirai 'lijcrtv, 
lb. XV. 28. 



s}o^i yap tZ ayico UvsvfA,ctli >cj Placuit enim Sancto Spiritui 
TiiJiTv, fAVi^iv 7^^£o^' tTnliSeo-^ai IfATv et nobis, nihil ampHus imponi 
^xpoq '7r>^h 7UV ixavu^Kiq TiiTuf vobis oneHs, quara haec qua 



necessaria horum : abstinete 
ab immolatis, et sanguine, ct 
siiffocatis, et fornicatione, a qui- 
bus observantes vos ipsos bene 
agetis. Valete. Ital % 3. 



TOf, K) TTVi^rSf kJ wops (a?. ^ 
"Eppaa-Bs, Bi/Z. Pal* 

f add. xa* oW a» /!x>j Senile laJIor^ 

Tert. de Pudic. cap. xii. p. 563. Primam banc regulam de 
auctoritate Spiritus Sancti, Apostoli emittunt ad eos, qui jam 
ex nationibus allegi coeperant. " Visum est,' inquiunt, * Spi- 
ritui Sancto et nobis nullum amplius vobis adjicere pondus, 
quam eorum a quibus necesse est abstineri, a sacrificils, et a 
fornicationibus, et sanguine, a quibus observando recte agitis, 
vectante vos Spiritu Sancto.'' Clem. Alex. Paedag. Lib. IL 

p. 202. oinriyta^^^ tl^uXoBvTuv, xal al/iAaJof, ^ 9SrViXT6;V, KCil 7535 



( 376 ) 



Col. i. U. 



if u txoiJ'B.t ftjv tlTroXvrfv^iv" ^ta In quo habemus e tedemp- 
t5 al'i/.cclQ^ acvrv", tj?? u(pia-iv ri^v tjonem per sanguinem ejus,' 
u^xfiuv. Bi/z, remissionem peccatorum. JtaK 

3. 



avTH. 



* des, ^ix t5 u\'(ji,ptloi 
Pal* 



. . . « des. redemptionem per 
sanguinem ejus. Ital. 2. 



S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. V. cap. ii. p. 293. Sanguis enim non 
est nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua quae est secundum ho- 
minem substantia, qua vere factum est Verbum Dei. Sanguine 
suo redemit nos, quemadmodum apostolus ejus ait ; " in quo 
habemus redemptionem jyer sanguinem ejus, remissionem pec- 
catorum.** 



lb. ii. 2. 

— iU liriyvuciv ru /xvr«pjy t5 — in aguitionem mysterii f 

0£« f xat Uxlfoq K«t tS XpifS." Dei Patris et Christi Jesu," in 

f¥ u i\ffi iruiliq ot %7av(c) t^? quo sunt omnes thesauri sapi- 

ao<pia,(i «a* t^s yvu<:rw(; ecrrU^vtpoi, entiae et scientiae absconditi, 

Bijz, Ital, 3. 

' desunt. xa* naipo; xa» t5 ^ ^uod est Christus. Jtal. 2. 
Xf»r». Pal* 

Clem. Alex Strom. Lib. V. cap. x. p. 683. aul vru>,iv oTo« 

av^fUTTOv £1/ w«<rt ao^ia, Hvcc iru^ctT^auiAii voivlx kvBfUiTo* TiXnov 
wravla toi' mreyovla t/Ajioj' gv Xli^W* — I'm) ort a Travlwv h yvucriq 



( 377 ) 



1 Joh. iv. 3. 

ua.) TTctv 'ffiivj/.x iji.r, 0/xoXoyer rov et omnis spiritus g qui non 
'IraSv s xpirov iv iracx) l^»]At;- confitetur Jesiim Christum in 
^oT«," I/. T« 065 a« lri» Buz, carne venisse," non est ex Deo, 

liaL 2. 

t des. X^irov iv cra^H* 6^73^t;So7«. g qui solvit Jesum. Ilal. 3. 
Pa/.* 

S. Polycarp. ad. Philipp. cap. vii. p. 188. * 9rag v<ip S? at 

In the concurring' testimony of the Eastern and 
Western Churches^ thus adduced in favour of the 
Greek Vulgate^ we have the entire weight of the 
presumptive evidence which is adducible on the 
present question ; — that each of the readings, sup- 
ported by those early vouchers, existed in the sacred 
text, from time immemorial. This evidence is, 
however, rendered positive by the express testi- 
mony of the primitive fathers, who have appealed 
to the texts before us, in the age which succeeded 
the apostolical. In the examples which have been 
adduced, and which constitute the whole of those 
of the smallest importance which have been im- 
peached by M. Griesbach ; one only is destitute of 
the authority of some one of those primitive wit- 
nesses. And this example is so firmly sustained 
by the external testimony of the vulgar texts of the 
Greek, Latin, and Syriack'^' churches, and by the 

^'^ Viji, supr. p, 169. n, ''\ p. 359. n. •^°. 



( 378 ) 

internal evidence of the sacred context, that not a 
doubt can be entertained of its being authentick. 
As to the remaining texts, the testimony of St. Po- 
iycarp, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and TertuUian, 
speak so plain a language with respect to them, ^s 
not to leave room for a cavil on their authenticity. 
Two testimonies from St. Irenasus have been indeed 
adduced from a Latin translation ; but the least at- 
tention to the scope and context of this primitive 
writer, must convince the most sceptical inquirer, 
that the reading of the vulgar text must have been 
before him while he was writing. A little closer 
attention to the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, 
will, I trust, also evince, that a similar conclusion 
must be formed respecting his allegation : and that 
we must infer from his mode of quotation, that he 
read in his copies, as we read, at this day, in the 
Greek and Latin Vulgate'^*. I do not long delay 

"* From what has been already adduced from Clement, It 
must appear, that more existed in the text, than that early fa- 
ther has quoted. This is more fully evinced in the tenour of 
his subject and reasoning. (1.) After referring to Eph. iii, 3, 
4. it is observable, that he sets out v^ith declaring ihere is a 
species of knowledge which is communicated only to the ini- 
tiated ; Clem. ub. supr. p. 682. I. 24. e'r** ya? ris oC, rsXeiW 

y, T. i. (2.) He expressly prefaces the passage before us, by 
declaring that it contained knowledge not extended to every 
one ; Id. ibid. p. 683. 1. 10. eTz-i* ort » Tid^flcov v) yvuiais, ^tapfii^y^it 
iTTiCpifn* ' <7y//-^t^a!7^s«'Ts;* X. T. i, (3.) If he does not here 
admit, that the apostle * openly sets forth' ^iu^Ik^-ziv l'jri(pspn, 
what he proceeds to insinuate, he however adds, that there were 
some things committed also to the Hebrews, in unwritten tra- 
dition ; Id, ibid. 1.21. ?y y^^^ r»x ccy^xfpwr ira^u.hhp^ivoi. aur/v-a 



( 379 ) 

to anticipate any objections which may be made lb 
those testimonies^ on the suspicion of their being 
interpolated from the vulgar edition. As the pas- 
sages involve pecuHarities^ not merely verbal^ they 
could not have been altered with ease ; and as they 
do not relate to any contested point of doctrine^ and 
have never been quoted to decide any, there could 
be no object in such a sophistication. They are 
indeed so completely interwoven with the subjects 
of the different writers, in whose works they are 

To<5 'E$^octoT^, (4.) It is observable, that the reading ly xftru 
is found in no manuscript ; and if this be considered the read- 
ing of Clement's text, it renders his quotation wholly nugatory. 
(5.) The phrase tS 0«;y, i^ Ualpoq xj t5 Xp»r5 is the reading 
of the Greek and Latin Vulgate, and it adds the greatest 
force and appositeness to Clement's quotation. As this phrase 
asserts the mystical union of *' the Father and Christ*' the Son, 
as one *' God,'' it is not only that species of knowledge, but the 
only species which Clement's religion prohibited him from di- 
vulging to the Heathen. (6.) While, of course, he must have 
read something of this kind in his text ; he has sufficiently indi- 
cated that it was the passage before us, by alluding to it under 
the term Iv Xprf. For this phrase, and the whole of this expla- 
nation, is thus confirmed by S. Hilary, in referring to the pas- 
sage before us, de Trinit. Lib. IX. § 62. col. 1025.—** in 
agnitionem sacramenti (|Mt;r*;^*a) Dei Christi, in quo sunt omnes 
thesauri saplentiae et scientiae absconsi, [Col. ii. 2, 3.] Deus 
Christus sacramentum est, et omnes thesauri sapientiae et scien^ 
tiae in eo latent, Portioni vero, et universitati non convenit," 
Clement, of course, knowing that the doctrine was h Xpi-J, or 
IJiVT*iftov £v X^ifw a,7rU^v(pQVf properly substituted this phrase in 
his works, which were published among the Heathen, for the 
true reading ts 0e5, xj rJarpoj xj tU X^ir^y which his religion 
prohibited him from divulging. Conf. S. Hier. Tom. V. p, 
S75. g. 



( 380 ) V 

found, that they cannot be removed without making 
guch a rent in the context, as would directly evince 
their removal. Infinitely greater, and indeed insu- 
perable, must have been the obstacles with w^hieh 
any sophisticatour would have to contend in insert- 
ing such passages in the writings of those primitive 
fathers. 

As the manner in which the early fathers have 
quoted even the remarkable texts already adduced 
renders any dependance on their testimony wholly 
unsafe, where the verbal integrity merely of the text 
is concerned, our only appeal lies in this case to 
the testimony of the primitive versions. The pri- 
mitive Italick and Syriack translations have been 
already pointed out, as the best and earliest wit- 
nesses: to their decision let us now submit the 
determination of the question. The following col- 
lection of texts constitute the whole of the passages 
of any the smallest importance, w hich M. Griesbach 
lias rejected from the Gospels, in his Corrected 
Edition, 



iMat. vi. 19. 

rrt irS Iriv '^ ^acrtXsU »^ rj cv- quoniam luum est regnum et 
ya/xi?, KJ ^ ^c'l^t, lU ra? al^mc, virtup, et gloria, in sa;;cula* 



Uyi.r,v, VuJg, It ah 1 



L.a-^. 



|/ n -^ \ V"^ ^oi i|^ -?? ^^-io quia tuum est regnum et po- 
y^'Xv \ .• ]AA.Q«o-»ii.o \^^Q tentia, et gloria in saecalii 
.^-.^cl^-ii- saeculorum. Syr, 



( 381 ) 



lb. XV. 8. 



3^i^£j fxoi Xao? 8T0S tJ i-oy.xrt adpropinqnat se mlhl populua 
wyrwv xa* — Viilg, hic ore suo, et — . ItaL 1. 

. ♦ . . desunt. S^r. . . desunt. Sj/r, 



lb. xvlii. ^9. 
W5 Ttf? TToS'af ayra. Tw/o-. ad pedes ejus. Itai. 1, 

wcio^^j Wifc. ad pedes ejus. Sj/r* 

Ibid. 35. 
^a 'jreipci'rrlkiiJi.ulcc avruv. Vvlg. peccata eorum. ItaL 1. 
o\Lr)\ n.£D errata ejus. Syr. 

lb. xix. 17. 

tI ^i x/yi»; uyu^ov ; aJfi; «ya$o?, quid me dicis bonum ? nemo 
it /xr> eTj ^to,'. Vulg, bonus nisi unus Deus. ItaL 1. 

AfcX.j^ i*Jl Aj] ]f.o l-j-io quid vocas me bonum ; nonest 
. joL^ ^^ J \]j }o..^ bonus nisi unus Deus. Syr, 

lb. XX, 22, 23. 

»^ TO ^uTflifffAu lyk) /?a7rli^o//a», aut baptisma baptizari quo ego 

^aiTTKr^nven ku) to ^utt et baptisma quo ego bap- 

TJTjtAa lyu Bot7fli^o[Aa.iy ^a'TrliO'. tizor baptizamini. liaLl. 
^KcnaBe. Vulg. 

}jj yialiN Jj]» jA*>QJal^ o] aut baptismate quo ego bapti- 

\^IQ ViN.V^o .* ^Oy v>\ /- zor baptizabimini baptis- 

, ^j^ai».Z. (jj r-V^ \^]l mate quo ego baptizor bapti- 
zabimini. Si/r. 



( 383 ) 



lb. xxvii. 35. 



tiflf. vXt^u^^ to gjjcji' vTro tS 

fAH lafTOK, Kat ewt rov t/xaTtc/xc;* 
^-tf jj?56?^oy iL7<.Y,fov, Vulg» 






V\:xo ^ooiA, 



ut impleretur quod dictum est 
perprophetam; diviserunt sibi 
vestimenta mea, et super ves- 
tern meam miserunt sortem* 
ltd. 2. 

ut impleretur id quod dictum 
est per prophetam : partiti 
sunt vestimenta mea inter se, 
et super vestem meam jecerunt 
sortem. 5yr. 



Mar. iv. 24. 



. Vuk. 



itai t//x(v rot; axH" 



^U 



^orxl^ 






et adjicietur vobis credentibus, 
ltd. 1. 

et adjicietur vobis ipsis qui aa« 
ditis. Syr, 



Ib.vi. 11. 



a/ATjy y^iyo) Vfjiiv ecviKTortp^ tfoci 



amen dico vobis, tolerabiliu* 
erit Sodomis, aut Gomoris in 
die judicii, quam illi civitaft'. 
ltd. 1. 

et equidem dico vobis tranqui- 
liorem fore Sedoum et Omouro 
in die judicii, civitate ilia. 
Syr. 



Ibid. 33. 



«i op^Xoi fxai I'Trtyvw^ay] avrov et COgnoverunt COS multi ...♦. 

.... Ku) 'TFforiX^ov avrtts o^ et praevenerunt eos, et conve^ 

cuyrtK^ov TT^Qf avroy, Vdg. Derunt ad eum. ltd. I. 

^1 [q^!o^*]o] [et agniti sunt] illi: et , 

. .-io2\-2l woiQ-io,.-© coram eo illuc. 



I 383 ) 

lb. x'ui, 14. 

TO ^m^h vTro AxvtTih t« WfcCpnTti* hiat. Brix* 

Vulg. 

Ja3j \3u}aJj.o Ij-»2c|> woi quod dictum est per Daniel 

prophetam. Syr, 

Luc. iv. 18. 
laa-xa^ui ts? crt;vT6Tpj^/Asv«; ttjit sanare contritos corde. lia^, L 
xotfyiOiv, Vulg, 

\^^ w;.aoAJ:i q^^}V;\ ad sanandum contritos corde. 

Syr. 

lb. ix. 55. 

o yup v^oq ru uy^puva wx ??.Se filius enim hominis non venit 
^vx»<; av^puiruv «'n■o^£(7a^, aX^a animas hominum perdere, sed 
cua-acu Viilg. salvare. Ital, 1. 

\L\ VJ .• ^-A-jji ;^^ cn^^i filius enim hominis non venit 
. ^^■-'-v^V V^j jZuiij o,^ ->v^\ ad perdendum animas, sed ad 

servandum. Syr, 

lb. X. 22. 

#^ Tfja^i*? TT^c? T«j /Aa^isJ*? itTre. „, desunt. Brix, 
Vulg. 

wCio, nV^\ i^ Zq-^ CAjaZjo et tonversus est ad discipulos 
< ^01^ jj^jo suos et dixit eis. Syr, 

lb. xi. 2. 
• «» Torf w^aic?? . . , , ^sKn^JsTAf qui es in coelis .... fiat volun* 
To ^ri'Kr.iA.at ctij «; t» tpatu xul It:) tas tua sicut in coelo-, et ia 
T??y??. Vulg, terra. Jial.l* 

^(^«a«0. joau ,,,.,, |^V)i>^? qui es in coelis .... fiat volun- 
*!^5f^ ca] J*!saAQ» 4^j tas tua, sicut in ccelo et in 

terra. Syr* 



( 38i ) 

Ibid. 4. 
aA?i<x fvaui «f4as »vo t5 wofjjgS. sed erue nos a malo. IiaL 1* 
Vulg. 

. |^«^ —io ■ >oo^ V^j sed libera nos a malo. Syr. 

Ibid. 44. 

y^xfAiActreVq x.ul (pK^iaocVoi ^Troxp- Scrlbae et Pliarassei hypocritae* 
Tau Vulg* Ital. 1. 

} o^j^ u.ciau }.A-**^o j* ;^^ scribae et perischaei hypocritae'* 

Syr, 

lb. xvii. 36. 
Ho scrovlai h rZ aypw* o tl? v«pa- duo in agro, unus adsumetur, 

>vi(p%(7iiai, aaX o It£j5oc a^sS^- et alter relinquetur. JtaL 1, 
aiicti, Vulg. 

^..^ \l n.^-^ .oooi_j ^~»5^ <^uo erunt in agro, unus assu- 
.wC-oAaj jj;.**|o ;jD!i\-j metur et alter relinquetur. 

Syr, 

Job. i. 27. 

04 i(j>.7rp<;^i> ^H yiyonv, Vulg, qui ante me f'actus est. ItaL 1. 

•*iCr-o ol!^ joaio et fuit ante me. Syr. 

lb. V. 16. 
«tt» e?i?T«» a^Tov wTroxIfr^a*. et quaerebant eum interficere* 
Vulg. ItaL 1. 

cjuL^ii^^ ocoi — fti^.00 et studebant eum intexficepea 

Syr, 

Ib.vi. 22. 

lx8r?o £*? fvi0v<yav ol (Ad^nTui .... desunt. Ital 1 . ?. 

| j'.vo\ ^ OTu!iik o'^^f^; wci earn quam conseendetant dis- 



cipuli. Syr, 



( 385 ) 

lb. viil. 59. 

^iX^uv Std fji£0-8 uvTuv, xj wag- transiens per medium eorum 
Syev «Tw?. Vulg. et ibat. Ital, 1. 

, Wijo ^cnA-J-*-o Ji£3l^o transiitque per medium eorum 

et abiit. S^/r, 

In the whole of these extracts there are but three 
passages which are not supported by the concurring 
testimony of the Oriental and Western Churches; 
one only which is not supported by the positive tes- 
timony of either of those antient unimpeachable 
witnesses. For Mat. xv. 8. is destitute of the sup- 
port of the Syriack version ; and Luk. x. 22. Joh. 
vi. 22. of that of the primitive Italick ; while Mat. 
xxvii. 35. is not only absent from the latter transla- 
tion, but wanting in many copies of the former^ as 
well as in many of the Greek Vulgate'". But the 

'^3 Marg, Vers. Syr. Philox. Matt, xxvii. 35. Tom. I. p. 149. 
cd. Oxon. 1778. " Partitisunt) Haec Periocha Prophetae noa 
inventa est in duobus exemplaribus Graecis, neque in illo anti- 
quo Syriaco." The learned editour ingenioussly observes ; iijk 
Praef. Sect. vi. p. xxix. ** Ad Matt, xxvii. 35. monet criticus., 
hanc pericopen non inveniri in duobus exemplaribus Graecijs, 
«eque in antiqua, vel Simplici, Syriaca. Nee hujus notes auctor 
Juit Thomas : quia si hanc pericopen in textu Polycarpi inve-^ 
nerit, et non in exemplaribus suis Graecis, quomodo non obelc* 
illam daranavit. Prof. Adler however observes, on the peris- 
cope or verse before us ; Nov. Test. Syriacc. Verss. Lib. ITw 
p. 96. " Desunt revera haec verba in codicibus versionig' 
Syriacae antiquioris, et in prima editione Viennensi, ubi tameji 
inter errata supplentur, e quibus deinde in sequiores editioi.ies 
irrepserunt. Desunt quoque, a voce x>,rj^ov ad xAjj^ok, in pie- 
risque nisi omnibus probatis codicibus Graecis, et sine d ubio 
fiunt rejicienda. 

CO 



( 3SG ) 

dissent ot' those antient versions from the former pas- 
sages, does not in the least impeach their authenti- 
city. As in these omissions the Syriack and Italick 
Versions accord with the Palestine text, their nega- 
tive testimony against the vulgar Greek must be 
imputed to the influence of Eusebius's edition; 
while their positive testimony in favour of the same 
text can be only accounted for by admitting their 
coincidence with the original Greek text, from which 
all editions have descended '^^. That in Mat. xv. 8. 
the Brescia manuscript possesses the genuine read- 
ing, has been already rendered apparent, from a 
comparative view of the copies of the Italick trans- 
lation*". In fact the dissent of the latter copies of 
this version from the vulgar Greek, may be traced 
to the influence of Origen's writings ; to which wc 
must impute the deviation of the Palestine text, in 
the instances before us, from the Greek Vulgate. 
And the extensive influence of Eusebius's text ren- 
ders it difficult to pronounce on the authenticity of 
Mat. xxvii. 35. The absence of this text from the 
Palestine edition is easily accounted for, as I hope in 
t)he sequel to prove ; its total absence from the pri- 
iuitive Italick version, and partial absence from the 
Syriack, is of course accounted for^ in the former 
consideration. But its partial introduction into the 
Syriack, and general admission into the Greek, 
create a difficulty which is not so easily solved. 
Oould we admit the truth of the account which St. 

•^•^* Vid. supr. p. 357. sqq. 
'3»- Vid. supr. p. 185. n.'". 



( 387 ) 

Jerome has given of Lucianus's text'^'^; the inter- 
polation of the original might be laid to his account, 
as it perfectly answers the description which he has 
given of Lucianus's alterations '^^ and as such is 
omitted in the modern Vulgate. The influence of 
Lucianus^ whose text prevailed from Byzantium to 
Antioch, of which latter city he was a presbyter, 
would fully account for the admission of this verse 
into the Syriack translation. But we have every 
reason to believe St. Jerome mistaken in his judg- 
ment of Lucianus's edition '^*. And in favour of 
this verse, it must be observed, that its introduction 
into the Gospel of St. Matthew is most conformable 
to the manner of that Evangelist, who is always so 
particular in his quotations from the prophetical 
Scriptures, that it can be scarcely conceived he 
could have wholly omitted this extraordinary pas- 
sage. The oblique manner in which it is referred 
to by the other Evangelists '^^^ seems to establish 
the same conclusion ; as its explicit citation in the 
Gospel of St. Matthew rendered it merely necessary 
that they should refer to it obliquely. 

In making the above citations, I have confined 
my attention to the passages rejected by M. Gries- 
bach from the Gospels, not merely from choice, but 
necessity. Neither the primitive Italick nor Syri- 
ack Version extend beyond that part of the New 
Testament; the Acts and Epistles of the former 

"^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. '". 

'" Vid. supr. p. 157. n. »°». 

"2 Vid. supr. pp. 137, 138. conf.p. 151, 

'^ Comp. Mar. xv. 24. Luk. xxiii. 3'i. 

c c2 



( 388 ) 

Version being wholly lost^ and those of the latter 
having been considerably altered since the Gospels 
were rendered, if not wholly translated, at a sub- 
sequent period ''^^ But in this loss there is not so 
much to regret, as may be at first imagined ; for we 
do not require the remaining parts of those versions 
to determine the matter at issue. As in the differ- 
ent classes of manuscripts, one species of text pre- 
vails through every part of the text ; those copies 
which are of the same class having the Gospels 

'♦° The partial propagation of the Gospel in Armenia, Persia, 
Arabia, Ethiopia, and Moesia, in the fourth century, renders it 
probable that select parts from the New Testament at least, were 
translated for the use of the churches established in those re- 
gions : vid. supr. p. 48. n. \ pp. 322. n. ^\ 323. n. ^\ The 
state of the Gothick and Ethiopick versions, if not of the Sahi- 
dick, and the history of the Armenian version, fully confirm this 
supposition. The first named version does not extend beyond 
the Gospels ; vid. Le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. I. p. 371. col. 2. a. 
The second contained several important omissions, which were 
supplied in the London Polyglot, vid. Le Long. ibid. p. 128. 
col. 1. e. Great additions were made to the Armenian ver- 
sion in the year 1333 by the Romish missionaries, who laboured 
at an early period to reduce the Armenian church to a state of 
subjection to the Roman Pontiff: Galan. Hist. Armen. p. 483. 
ed. Colon. 1686. In the thirteenth century it was revised 
and corrected throughout by the Latin Vulgate; vid. Marsh. 
Michael, chap. vii. p. 103. The Persian and Arabick have 
been completed, and revised throughout by the Coptick 
and Syriack ; Marsh. Michael. Ibid. pp. 77. 83. 105. We 
may thus easily account for peculiar readings, which are fre- 
quently retained in the modern version, which are not found ia 
the antient ; those readings existing in such parts of the tran- 
slation as were made before the version was completed, by the 
last revisal. 



( 389 ) 

agreeing with the Acts and Epistles ; when we esta- 
blish the superiour purity of any class, in the prin- 
cipal part of the text_, we may thence legitimately 
infer that of the remainder. Or to reduce this mat- 
ter to more certain principles ; when, by the assist- 
ance of those auxiliaries, the Eastern and Western 
versions^ we have ascertained what manuscripts of 
the original Greek will furnish the genuine text, 
on a comparative view of the subject ; we may 
thence relinquish the accessories, and on the com- 
parative testimony of the principals, determine the 
authentick text of Scripture. In this undertaking 
considerable use may be likewise made of the ver- 
sions; whatever be the changes which they may 
have undergone, since their first formation. As we 
know the original text by which they have been re- 
touched, and the points in which they have been 
affected ; thePalestine text being the model by which 
they were shaped, and points of doctrine being those 
in which they have been influenced; a slight cal- 
culation will enable us, if not to recover the primi- 
tive reading of the translation, yet to appreciate its 
lightness when weighed against the authority of the 
original. In fact, a very small allowance made for 
the alterations which the Syriack Vulgate may have 
sustained, still leaves the testimony of that version 
as fully on the side of the vulgar Greek, in the 
Epistles and Acts, as in the Gospels. Taking into 
account, together with its testimony, the evidence 
of those later witnesses, to whom an appeal lies in 
the present subject; we may thence deduce a per- 
fect defence of tlie Greek Vulgate, on every poiht of 



( 390 ) 

th6 smallest importance^ in which its integrity has 
been impeached as corrupted***. 

"** The following list of texts, which constitute the whole of 
the passages which are of any importance, on account of their 
length, that M, Griesbach has wholly rejected from the Acts 
and Epistles, may be restored to the sacred text on the testi- 
mony of the annexed authorities : Act. ii. 30. to xala crapxa 

«>ar^<r«t» rov X^iroy, Byz, ^g» It, 2. 3. lb. ix. 6. CK'kmfov ffOi 
vr^oq xivlfoc Xaxli^stf. T^i[XU¥ T£ t^ Botjx^uv itirt' Kvpit ri yLt ^/Xtif 
?roi2cra» ; xat o Kypjo? Tpo? avTov, ByZ, Syr. 2. It. 3. J^ltk, Ar. 
lb. X. 6. aro? AaA^o-tt <ro», T»' at ^sT vtoieTv. ByZ, ^g» It. 3. 
Copt. lb. XV. 18. hi ru ©£« 'Kotvlcc toi 'ifyoc uvtS. Byz. jEg. 
Syr. 1. It. 2. 3. lb. xxii. 20. t*j iyai^eVfit avrS. Byz. Syr. I. 
Ar. 2. Rom. vi. 12. avrj? iv r»7s iTnSv^lcnq ocvrS. Byz. Pal, 
Syr. 1. 2. It. 3. Ibid. viii. 1. fA^ itala <rapx« ws^iwalacrtv. Byz. 
Syr. 1. It, 2. 3. Ar. lb. xi. 6. tl ^\ If tpyuvf «x£Tt Ir* x^gis* lirit 
TO tfyov ax£T» InJ' «fiyoy. 5^2. Sl/r. 1. ^r. lb. XV. 29. t5 euajye^a 
T». ji5y2;. jSj/r. 1. /if. 3. Ar. 1 Cor. vi. 20. »c) If to; irvivixali vfji,uv, 
ctriva, er» t£ ©ta. Byz. Syr. 1. Ar. lb. x. 28. tS yap KypJa v) yn 
x) TO 'rr>,yif0iJt,ae, uvr^q. ByZ. Syr. 2. -4r. Gal. iii. 1. rvi aAijSeta (ji.tt 

veiBstT^aci ; Byz. Syr. 2. JEM. /if. 3. Jra5. Eph. iii. 9. ^»a 'l)?o-5 
Xpjr*. jB^2. iSj/r. 2. Arab, Phil. iii. 16. xavov* to a^To ^poȣri'. 
Byz. Syr. 1. It. 3. </4r. Ibid. 21. tU to ysvsVSa* a^To. ^^jsr. 
Syr. 1. 2. ^r. Col. i. 2. xj Kvgia 'l»3cr» Xptaa. %^. S^r. 2. /if. 3. 
j4r. ^<^. 1 Thes. iii. 2. xj ^jaxovojr— i/Aw^. Bysf. Syr. I. Ar. 1. 2. 
Heb. ii. 7. xj xa1er»J<7'as ayToi* Iw* rd tpyoc rUfii %£»pwi' era. Byz. Syr^ 
1. 2. /^. 2. 3. Ar.JEth. 1 Pet. i. 23. «? tov «»^»a. Byz. Syr, 1. 
/if. 2. 3. Ar. 1 Job. v. 13. Tor^ nKivaffiv z\q to lvo/<ca t5 'Y»S t3 
©4S. Byz. Arab, Apoc, i. 8. «px*» "«* t/Xo?. J5j/2:. S[yr. 2. 
/if. 3. Cojaf. Jbid. 10. lyu tlf^i ro A x«* to H, o <nrpuro; xxl o 
sa-xetloi' Jta*. Sys:. Syr, 2. ^4ra^. lb. v. 14. ^wvlt ek t«j «i<ypa? 
vuv aXuvm. Byz. Syr. 2. It. 3. lb. xi. 1. xat 5 »fye\oq tUvKii. 
Byz. Syr. 1. lb. xiv. 5. ^vu'Jr^ov tS ^^ova ra ©£a. Byz- Syr. 2. 
/f. 3. lb. XV. 2. ex Ta ya.fa,yiji.o[lo(;. Byz. Syr. 2. ^r«^. To 
which the following may be added from the Gospels ; Mar. iii. 
5. yyiJ»? <yf n aWn. Byz. Mg. It, 2. poene. lb. ix. 38. o? «>t 
4<QXt?^«r i/*r». Byz. Mg, It, 2. i%r. 2. Luc. vii, 31, J^rr ^e 4 



( 391 ) 

That no other text of the Greek but the Pales- 
tine edition has had any influence on the old 
Italick and Syriack, or their descendants, the 
versions of Philoxenus and St. Jerome, I have 
already endeavoured to prove *'^*. The corrections 
which the Latin Vulgate received, under the Em- 
perour Charlemagne, may be indeed conceived 
to invalidate its testimony, when adduced, as 
a separate witness, with the Syriack, in favour of 
the original Greek '*^ But when we observe the 
distinction which must be made between the Byzan- 
tine and Palestine texts ; no corrections which the 
Latin version could have sustained at this period, or 
antecedently, can affect its testimony, when adduced 
on the side of the former edition. 

From the fourth to the eighth century inclusive, 
there were few persons who were adequate to the 
task of revising the Latin translation ; and from the 
knowledge which we possess of their history, it must 
be inferred, that none but St. Jerome and St. Euse- 
bius engaged in this undertaking. In the fourth 
and fifth centuries, a knowledge of Greek was a rare 
attainment among the Latins '^*. Many were cer- 
tainly able to read it '^^ ; but destitute of so incon- 

Kvfioi. Bt/z, It, 1. lb. vii. 44. t?? xi^a^)??. Bi/z. It, 1. lb. 
ix. 1. /xaSijTa? ecvra, Byz. Pal, It, 1. 2. 3. 

'*^* Vid. supr. p. 342. sqq. 

'♦3 Vid. supr. p. 21. n. ^^ 

'** Vid. supr. p. 57. n. *'. 

**' Not only S. Hilary, Eusebius Vercellensis, and Lucifer 
Calaritanus possessed so much knowledge of Greek, but Phi- 
lastrius, Ambrose, and his friend Gaudentius. The long inter- 
course which the former maintained ^ith the Greeks, and the 



( 393 ) 

siderable yet necessary assistance as a Lexicon, few 
would undertake to translate it. St. Jerome and his 
contemporary^ Ruffinus^ are remarkable exceptions ; 

active part which they took in the affairs of the Eastern church, 
contain a sufficient proof of the above assertion ; vid. supr. p. 
54. n. ". Philastrius' tract on Heresy contains much informa- 
tion, which could only be derived through this source ; St- 
Ambrose frequently refers to the Greek, and has adopted the 
greater part of his treatise o« the Holy Spirit from St. Basil's 
treatise, on the same subject ; which he could only attain 
through a knowledge of the language in which it was written j 
vid. Patrr. Bened. Monit. in Ambros. de Spir. Sanct, Tom. IL 
col. 596, 597. Gaudentius, as appears from several passages 
in his works, must have had some knowledge of Greek ; as he 
sometimes compares the readings of the Greek and Latin co- 
pies of Scripture, and corrects the one by the other: vid» 
Orthodoxogr. Tom. H. pp. 1835. 1844. The request which he 
made to Ruffinus to undertake the translation of a work as- 
cribed to Clemens Romanus, contains a sufficient proof how- 
ever that his skill in this language did not qualify him for the 
office of a translator, which was discharged with difficulty even 
by Ruffinus; Ruffin. Peror. in Expl. Orig. sup. Ep. ad Romm. 
ap. Orig. Tom. IV. p. 689. b. Post hoc sane vocat nos opus 
quod olim quidem injunctum est, sed nunc a heato Gaudentio 
episcopo vehementius perurgetur, dementis scilicet Romani epis- 
copi, Apostolorum ac successoris de Recognitione libri ut in 
luatmum vertantur. In quo opere bene novi, quod laborem 
labor muhiplicaf, si sortem suscipiat. Satisfaciam sane in ea 
amicis meis,'* &c. conf. p. 688. St. Eusebius of Verceli, and 
St. Jerome, were probably the only persons of the age compe- 
tent to the task of forming a literal version of the sacred text ; 
and both accordingly devoted a great portion of their lives to 
that undertaking. The former owed liis knowledge of Greek, 
to his having been banished to Cappadocia ; the latter to his 
long residence in the East; vid. supr. p. 237. n. "^. conf. S, 
Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Euseb. Verc» Tom« I. p. 130*. 



( 393 ) 

but the reputation which they acquired, as transla- 
tors, the latter on very slender pretensions ^^^, suffi- 
ciently reveal how very rare the endowment was at 
this period. As we descend below this period, in- 
stances are still more rare of those who possessed 
this qualification. The subjugation of the Western 
Empire by the Goths, who extended their arms into 
Africa "'^^, rendered this age particularly unpropi- 

'**' The charge of unfaithfulness in translating from the 
Greek is brought against Ruffinus by St. Jerome ; S. Hier. 
Apol. adv. Ruffin. Lib. II. cap. v. Tom. II. p. 24-6. And some 
fragments, which are preserved of Origan's Commentary ou 
the Epistle to the Romans, which Ruffinus undertook to trans- 
late at the request of Heraclius, fully justify the charge of St, 
Jerome. The Benedictine editours introduce the first of those 
fragments to our notice, with the following observation ; Orig. 
Comment, in Ep. ad Romann. Tom. IV. p. 462. n. "". " Quam 
infida sit Riifini interpretation liquet ex Graecis, qua:^ Philocalise 
cap. XXV. sic repraesentantur, &c. Pliny the elder, and Euse- 
bius of Ca^sarea, were the most learned men of the age in which 
they lived ; yet their attempts at rendering Greek into Latin, 
and Latin into Greek, exhibit some curious mistakes. The 
subjoined passage of Tertullian is rendered as follows by Euse- 
bius; Tert. Apol. cap. v. p. 21. ** Consulite Commentaries 
vestros. Illic reperietis primum Neronem in banc sectam cum 
maxime Romae orientem cassariano gladio ferocisse.'* Euseb. 
Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxv. p. 83. 1. 22. lHv^ili ro7q vTroixti- 
IMta-iv vfji.uv» ly.iT tv^rjctle v^uTov Ns^wna tSto to ooypta, riViKOi f/.a7\iftc 
Iv Pvixvi rriV dvaloXriv Troiaoiv vTrola^acy u^o-,- y;v iU iruvlai^, ^tui^avla.. 
The use of to Uyy^a. and ^vixa, for tviv oci^iciv and ort, not to 
speak of the general misconception of the sense, are slight er- 
rours, compared to the shameful mistake of rendering orientem 
by rnv avotloxh. The reader who would see similar instances of 
mistranslation in Pliny, may consult Salmas. Piiniann. Exercitt. 
in Solin. Tom. I. p. 127. d. sqq. 
!*^ Vid. supr. p. 296. n. 3°'. 



( S94 ) 

tious to study. Sedulius HibernensiSj who im- 
pelled by an insatiable thirst for information^ tra- 
velled as far eastward as Asia, whither literature 
was now retiring from the West' *^ is a singular 
instance of a person acquainted with Greek '*^ in 
an age, when the light of science had nearly set in 
the western hemisphere. The difficulties with which 
Cassiodorus had to contend in the next age, in pro- 
curing a competent person to revise the Latin tran- 
slation'^*, sufficiently proclaim how very unusual 

»*« Sixt. Sinens. BIblioth. Sanct. Lib. IV. p. 219. b. ed. 1510. 
*« Velut alter Apollonius Tyaneus, [Sedulius] fugientem sapi" 
entiam toto terrarum orbe perquirens, Britanniam, Hispaniam, 
Galliam, Italiam, Grccciamy et Asiam, miro discendi ardore per- 
lustravit,** &c. Honourable mention is made of Sedulius by 
Cassiodorus ; vid. Usser. Antiquitt. Brit. Eccles. cap. xvi. p. 

407. sqq. 

^^ A Greek Psalter transcribed in the ninth century from 
an autograph of Sedulius is still preserved, and is described by 
the learned Benedictine, B. de Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Graec. 
Lib. III. cap. vii. p. 236. On the execution of the work, the 
learned antiquary observes ; Jbid. p. 236. " Etsi vero non ita 
perite exaratus sit codex, nihil stupendum in Latino scriba ; 
nam si Graeci calligraphi ejusdem aetatis frequenter vocalium 
commutationes — admittunt; quid mirum si Latinus scriba, 
alnTraii pro alviTrt dicat, yemuxTKn pro yivuo-yiti et similia : sed 
tamen non ita frequenter sensum interturbat : quo videatur, 
Greece non imperitum, ut ilia aetate, Sedulium Scotum," 

*5° Of these difficulties, Cassiodorus, who had been at infinite 
pains to collect not only books, but translatours and exposi- 
tours, out of all parts of the world, [vid. Cassiod. de Instit. 
Divin. Litter, capp. viii. ix. p. 544?. ed. Rptom. 1679.] speaks 
in the following terms ; Id. ibid, in Praef. p. 537.— gravissimo 
fateor dolore permotus, quod scripturis divinis magistri publici 
^essent . NIsus sum ergo cum beatissimo Agapito Papa 



( 395 ) 

the same qualification was in the age when he flou- 
rished; the school of Nisibis, situated at the ex- 
treme borders of Syria^ having been the nearest 
place from whence a person qualified to discharge 
this office, could be procured, Junilius, a contem- 
porary of Cassiodorus, mentions, as an unusual cir- 
cumstance, his having' seen one person, a Persian, 
who had been educated at Nisibis, and possessed 
this rare though humble endowment'^*. 

Admitting that the Greek text had any influence 
on the Latin Vulgate, it must have been that text 
which existed in the Palestine edition ; for with it 
alone the orientalists were acquainted. When we 
are therefore informed, that the correction of this 
translation was undertaken from the Syriack and 

urbis Romae ; ut sicut apud Alexandriam, multo tempore fume 
traditur institutum nunc etiam in Nisibi civitate Syrorum, ab 
Hebraeis sedulo fertur exponi, collatis expensis In urbe Romana 
professes doctores scholae potius exciperent christianae, unde et 
anima susciperet aetemam salutem, et casto atque purissimo 
eloquio fidelium lingua comeretur. Sed cum per bella ferxieu' 
Ha, turbulenta nimis in Italico regno cerfamitia, dessederium 
meum nuUatenus valuisset impleri : quoniam non habet locum 
res pacis, temporibus inquietis ; ad hoc divina charitate prober 
esse compulsus, ut ad vicem magistri, introductorios vobis libros 
istes, Domino praestante, conficerem," 

'^* Junil. de Partt. Div. Leg. in Prooem. ad Priraas. '* Tu 
autem more illo tuo nihil ante qucesisti quam si quis esset inter 
GrcBcos qui divinorura librorum studio intelligentiaque flagraret. 
Ad haec ego respondi, vidisse me quemdam, Paulum nomine, 
Persam genere, qui in Syrorum sckola in Nisibi urbe est edoc- 
tus : ubi divina lex per magistros publicos, sicut apud nos in 
mundanis studiis, Geometrica et Rhetorica, ordine regulariter 
traditur.*' Ap. Max. Bibl. Patrr, Tom. X, p. 34^0. c. 



( 396 ) 

Greek '^'; the only reasonable inference is^ that the 
Syriack was the Philoxenian version, the Greek the 
Palestine text, which were employed in the revisaL 
This supposition is fully confirmed by the coinci- 
dence which exists between that text and version, 
and the affinity which both possess to the modern 
Vulgate *^^ That the readings of the latter version 
were more than collated with the Greek and Sy- 
riack texts, and the true readings more than ascer^ 
tained, from different copies of the translation, 
which was originally made from the Palestine edi- 
tion, is rendered wholly improbable by many consi- 
derations*^*. To recast the translation by a differ- 

"* Vid. supr. p. 21. n. 3*. 

*5^ In the passages quoted, supr. p. 380. sqq. from theantient 
Syriack, the Vulgate dissents from that version, and agrees 
with the Palestine text, omitting all that the Syriack retains, but 
Joh. i. 27. In the printed editions, Matt, xxvii. 35. Luc. xvii. 
36. 55. which occur in the Syriack, are retained also in the 
Vulgate; but in the Roman Corrections subjoined to the Bible 
of Sixtus V. they are marked as absent from some manuscripts 
of the vulgar Latin version. It is extraordinary, that in the 
only remaining passage of any length, Luc. vii. 31. st-Tre ^t a 
Ktgio?, in which the Greek and Syriack Vulgate differ, which 
otherv/ise generally agree ; the Latin Vulgate, differing from 
the latter, agrees with the former. As it is highly improbable 
that the criticks of Charlemagne's days, attended to minute 
verbal differences ; these examples will abundantly demonstrate, 
that the Greek text and Syriack version, by wliich they cor- 
rected the Gospels, could not have been the vulgar edition. 

*^* One of the strongest reasons appears to be this; the read- 
ing of the Latin Vulgate might be thus ascertained with great 
precision and ease ; as this version, as well as the Philoxenian 
Syriack, was made from the Palestine Greek, Had the rcvi^ 



( 397 ) 

cnt text, if practicable, would have been an useless 
attempt, and inconsistent with the high veneration 
in which St. Jerome's translation was held'^^. It 
was this veneration which must surely have directed 
the authours of this revisal to Palestine, where they 
could not be ignorant the Vulgate was framed, in 
search of the Greek, from whence that version was 
made originally. And the preface prefixed by St, 
Jerome to the Gospels, directed them not merely to 
the original, from whence it was derived, but to ex- 
traneous sources, which were naturally conceived to 
exist in the Palestine text and Syriack translation '^^. 
Whatever might have been the care employed in 
correcting the modern Vulgate, it could thus have 
extended to little more than restoring its orig-inal 
readings. And thus much is apparent from the 
internd evidence of the copies of the Vulgate^ which 

sers proceeded greater lengths in restoring the text, they must 
have transgressed the intentions of Charlemagne: Carol. Magn. 
ap. P. Mabil. in Annall. Tom. I. p. 25. *' Igitur quia curfB 
nobis est, ut Ecclesiarum nostrarum ad meliora semper profi- 
ciat status, obliteratam pene malorum nostrorum disidia repa- 
rare, vigilanti studio literarum satagimus officinam ; et ad per- 
noscenda sacrorum librorum studia, nostro etiam quos possumus 
invitamus exemplo, inter quae jampridem universes Veteris ac 
Novi Testamenti libros, librariomm imperitia depravatos, Deo 
BOS in omnibus adjuvante, ad amussim correximus." 

'55 Vid.supr. pp. S2, 33. nn. ^^ et 5^. 

*5^ Vid. supr. p. 100. n. "®. S. Jerome, in declaring, in that 
Preface, " cum multarum gentium Unguis Scriptura ajite tranS' 
lata," was naturally conceived to include the Syriack version. 
Of this translation it is certain, his predecessour, Eusebius, if 
not Origen, made some use, in revising the Old Testament, as 
will appear in the sequeL 



( 398 ) 

were corrected by Alcuine, under Charlemagne; 
and which have descended to our times *^^; it does 
not appear that these copies approximate more to 
the valg-ar text of the Syriack and Greek, than any 
other copies of that translation. 

Nor is the integrity of the Si/riack Vulgate less 
ca|>ab]e of vindication^ from the charge of those 
who would insinuate, that it has been corrupted from 
the Greek Vulgate. That such a corruption could 
not have taken place, subsequently to the year 450, 
when the Philoxenian version was formed, has been 
already evinced, from the history of the Syrian 
church since the middle of the fifth century'^*. 
And the bare consideration, that this version was 
framed, at that period, by the Palestine text, ren- 
ders the conception absurd in the extreme, that the 
primitive version could have previously coincided 
with the same edition : the eviction of which agree- 

'" Such is the celebrated Vallicella Bible, mentioned under 
the following terms by M. Blanchini, Evangeliar. Quadrupl. 
P. II. f. dciv. Descriptio insignis Cod. Vallacelani, complec- 
tentis Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti, exarata proprio manu, 
ab Alchuino Anglo, Sancti Bedae discipulo.'* This MS. ig 
however classed by M. Blanchini, among those which are de- 
scribed under the following title ; Id. ib. dxcix. " Descriptio 
aliquot Codicum Latinorum Antiquae Italae purcB putce Hiero* 
nymiancs,^* The subscription of the MS. Bible of St. Germain 
des Prez, which has been already quoted, supr. p. 32. n. '^ 
contains a stronger confirmation of the above assumption ; that 
t]ae integrity of the Latin Vulgate was rather restored than 
violated under the revisal of Alcuine ; and that its affinity to 
the Syriack must be sought in the Palestine text, which had 
some influence on this version and St. Jerome's. 
'5* Vid. supr. p. 343. sqq. 



( 399 ) 

mcnt is essentially necessary to the establishment of 
the assumption^ that the latter version has been sub- 
sequently altered, to correspond with the text of By- 
zantium. As the Peshito_, or Syriack Vulgate^ has 
never sunk in the esteem of the Syrian church ; the 
formation of a new version cannot be imputed to 
the circumstance of the old having become obsolete 
in its language^, or fallen in its reputation : nor to 
any other cause, but the publication of a Greek text, 
which attained to higher repute than that from which 
the original version was formed. Had it been in 
consequence of the corruption of the primitive tran- 
slation, from some modern Greek text, it must be 
obvious, that the only plan left to those who would 
undertake to remedy this evil, would have been to 
restore the primitive readings, by a collation of the 
old copies of the version with those of the original. 
But this is a supposition which is not only refuted by 
the internal evidence of the version, which possesses 
no such corrections; but is wholly irreconcilable 
with the veneration in which the vulgar version is 
held by the Syrians '^9 In fact, the whole of the 

*5* Gabr. Sionit. Praef. in Psalt. Syriac. p. iii. Quamvis 
linguae Syriacae usus communis sit apud distinctas diversarum 
religionum nationes, sacrorum tamen voluminum integritas summa 
semper cum religione servata est ab omnibus^ ita ut nulla vel 
minima discrepantia in eorum lectione deprehendatur. Viget 
autem ea lingua primo apud Chaldceos Mesopotamiae populos, 
Hceresi Nestoriance misere obligatos ; turn apud Syros Jacobitas, 
qui Dioscoridis, Eidychetisy et Jacobi Jalsa dogmata secuti, 
Monothelitarum nomine dignoscuntur ; tcrtio apud Maronitas 
nostros, etiam Syros, qui ab avita fide Catholica Roraana nun-_ 
quam descivernnt.'* 



( 400 ) 

tircums lances of the case, tend as fully to prove, 
that the text with which the primitive version agrees 
was antient, as that by which the latter version was 
formed, was modern '^°. From which consideration 
the priority of the Byzantine to the Palestine text, 
follows of course ; as it is with the former that the 
primitive version corresponds, while the revised cor- 
responds with the latter. Admitting this to be the 
case, which it will not be found easy to disprove, 
the unsupported assumption, that the Syriack Vul- 
gate has been corrected by the Byzantine Greek, 
requires no further refutation. Such an assumption 
can be only maintained on the grounds of the affi- 
nity discoverable between the Syriack and Greek ; 
whrcli affinity must be thus attributed to this obvi- 
ous cause ; that the one was originally made from 
the other. 

. "50 jt j^g never been doubted, that the later version has been 
formed after the Palestme text, which was pubHshed by Euse- 
bius, and which accorded in the Old Testament with Origen's 
Hexapla. Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. xiii. 
} S. p. 89. — versionem hahent [Syri] ex Hebraeo antiquissimam, 
quam in his Bibliis exhibemus, et ilia quam postea hauserunt 
ex Gr^cOy non erat ex mixta aliqua editione, sed ex ea qiiam in 
Origenis Hexaplis puram esse et genuinam, omnes veteres, imo 
ipse Hieronymus, uno ore affirmarunt," This however is ren- 
dered indisputable by the subscription of the Ambrosian MS. 
of the Philoxenian Version ; a specimen of which has been pub- 
lished by M. De Rossi. Spec. ined. Hexaplar. Biblior. Vers. 
Syro-Estrang. in Diatrib, § vi. [p. x.] Parm. 1778. " Modo 
ad Godicem ipsum redeamus, qui hac epigraphe explicit; 
* Descriptus est et effictus ex exemplari Eusehii et Pamphili. 
Ad ejus scilicet normam, quod ipsi emendarunt ex hiblioiheca 
Origenis,*' 



( 401 ) 

Ab these considerations seem adequate to vindi- 
cate the integrity of the Syriack Vulgate; they in- 
volve an equally strong- argument in favour of the 
antiquity of this translation, which is universally 
admitted to be the most antient of the Oriental ver^ 
sions *^'. That this version existed in its present 
mutilated fornix previously to the fourth century, 
I cannot be easily brought to conceive. The ex- 
travagant antiquity ascribed to it by the native Sy- 
rians '*^* and Orientalists '^\ is clearly entitled to no 

"" Walt, ut supr. § 8. p. 89. " Quod ad utilitatem hujus 
linguae spectat — addere licet, quod in ea extat vetustissima trari' 
slatio, Vet. Test, ex Hebraeo, et Nov. Test, ex GrcBco, qucB omnes 
post Christum factas antiquitate superat." Renaudot. ap. Le 
Long. Biblioth. Sacr. Tom. L p. i. cap. ii. p. 93. " Versfo 
Syra, qua vulgo Syri omnes ntuntur^ ex Hebraico facta est 
omniumque versionum Orientaliilm est antiquissimaJ" Conf. 
infr. n. '^\ 

*^* Walt. ibid. p. 90. § 15. " --Sionita in Psalm. Syr. ex 
Saodedo quodam episcopo Hadetbiensi, antiquo apud Syrds 
scriptore. Fatetur tamen ibidem Sionita, quorundam Syrorum 
sententiam esse, totam Vet. et Nov. Test. Versionem factam 
Juisse tempore S, Thaddan (quern Addcsum vacant) et reg.s Ab' 
gari; priorem vero sententiam probabiliorem judicat, quee raihi 
improbabilior videtur." 

^^^ Abul-Pharai. Hist. Arab. p. 184. a Pocock.— " siquidem 
exemplar— quod Simplex appellatur, quia qui illud elaborarunt 
de ornatu verborum soliciti non fuerunt, convenit cum exera- 
plari Judffiorum. At Syri Occidentales duas habent versiones, 
simplicem illam quse e lingua Hebraica in S^riacam translata 
est post adventwn Domini Christi tempore Addcei Apostoli, vel 
juxta alios, ante eum tempore Salomonis filii David et Hirami ; 
et alteram figuratam juxta LXX seniorum interpretationem 
e lingua Grceca in Syriacam traduciam longo post Sakatoric 
incarnationetn.^* 

Dd 



( 402 ) 

attention. So great a work as the translation of the 
whole Bible into the language of that people, must 
have been effected by labour and time. That part 
of the version which contains the Old Testament 
has been attributed to the Jews*^*; and the mere 
circumstance of this part of the canon having beeii 
the first that was translated, seems decisive of the 
fact. The christians possessed no knowledge of 
the Hebrew, from which this version was made ^*^ 
and were not €ven in possession of the original;, 
until the publication of Origen's Hexapla'^^. In 

'*+ Author. Synops. Nov. Bibll. Polyglott. p. 18. <* Syria 
duplex est Bibliorum versio, ex Graeco una facta est — ex He* 
braio altera — , Ebraica verba ita presse exprimit, ut a JudcEO 
potius quam ab homine Christian© profectam Juisse crediderim* 
Suspicor illam olhn in vsum Judmorum^ qui in synagogis sui& 
Ebraice et Chaldaice legebant, conditam fuisse, et ab his ob 
Chaldaicse et Syriacae dialectorum affinitatem ad Syros tran- 
siisse.'* Ap. Le Long. ibid. 

'*5 Vid. aupr. p. 401. n. ^^^» &c. It is mentioned by Euse- 
bius as a singular instance of the indefatigable diligence of 
Origen, who, according to the admission of the Pagans, was 
the most learned person of bis times, that he studied Hebrew j 
fid. supr. p. 213. n. ", 

'^^ Eusebius represents the possession of a copy of the He- 
brew Scriptures as peculiar to Origen ; Hist. Eccles. Lib. VL 
cap. xvi. p. 275. 1. 21. To<rai;T»j ^t tla-ytytlo rai 'fiptym* t«» ^bIu9 
^oyuv aTTijHfi^uiAsvv i^iroe.o-i<;y us *^ t>j» "EBfot^cc y7\.u'^a.}i iKi^u^tTu 
rds re tia^ toli *IbS«»ois" Efx^s^Ofxhaf WftS\o\v7i8f avroii *E^fci\uf 
rotx«*o'f Tpa^a?, x7r//xa i'^tov 'JioiriOaa'hoii. And St. Jeroai^ 
speaks of him as learning Hebrew contrary to the prejudice of 
his country ; S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccl. in Orig. Tom. I. p. 
126. *' Et quod tantum in Scripturas divinas habuerit studii, 
ut Gtiam Hebraeam linguam contra cetatis gentisque suce naturam 
tdiscerct" 



( 40S ) 

compiling this great work, in the third century, 
Origen probably made some use of the Syriack ver- 
sion, having frequently referred to it in his mar- 
gin '^^. In the fourth century, it is noticed by Euse- 
biu8, Basil, and Ambrose *^^ ; and is expressly quoted 

'^7 Montfauc. Praelimm. in Hexapl. Origen. cap. i § vii. 
p. 18. ** Samaritani et S^ri lectiones in marginibiis vetudissi* 
morum exemplarium quce Hexaplorum Jragmenta exhibenty per- 
Baepe observantur; Syri quidem in plerisque Scripturce libris $ 
Samaritani vero in Pentateucho tantum: — Cum autem illae 
Samaritani lectiones, non in vetustis codicibus tantum, sed 
€tiam apud patres quarti, quinfi, et sequent! um saeculorum 
occurrant, prohabile sane videtur ipsum Originem lectiones illas 
Samaritani in margine Hexaplorum posuisse. Idem porro dicen* 
dum de Si/ro, cujus interpretationes passim reperiuntur, in 
Genesi Exodo," &c. Whatever be considered protjable on this 
subject, it must be inferred, that this version, which is quoted 
in the Hexapla, was the Peshito, from its coincidence with the 
Hebrew ; vid. infr. d. '""K 

. '"^^ Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polygll. p. 91. ** Quicquid 
vero sit de hoc Hieronymi testimonio" (vid.supr.p. 897. n. *^^) 
certum est Syriacae versionis apud multos veterum Grascorum et 
Latinorum fieri mention em. Basilius Magnus Horn. 1. in Hex, 

ad Gen. i»2. ex Syro interprete nsmo exponit, . Ambrosius 

Hex. Lib. I. cap. viii. in eundem locum citat Syrum — Procopius 
in Exod. xxii. memorat Syrum vertisse * excutite, racuifacite,' 
cv<riLtva,a-o[\i, Theodoretus in cap. iii. Jonse Syros codices citat, 
ut in Ps. civ. cxiii. cxvi. Chrysostomus in Ps. xciv. et Heb. xi, 
Syri codicis etiam meminit S, Atigustinus De Civitate Dei 

Lib. XV. cap. xiii. -, Ad haec saepissime ra Tv^a 

mentionera habemus in antiquissimrs Scholiis Graecis," &q, 
Montfauc. ibid. p. 19. ** Syri porro lectiones adferuntur ab Eu' 
sebio Ccesariensiy a Diodoio Tarsensi frcquentifs ; ab E.sebio 
JEmisenOf Hieronymo, Theodoreto et aliis. Quodque notandum 
est, iidem, maximeque Diodorus, Syrum cum Hebrceo jungunt 
hoc pacto ; « 2^f of t^ • 'E^g«r&c, vel, o E/3f aro? >c) « 2vfo«, quatido 



( 404 ) 

out of the Old and New Testament, by Ephrcm, the 
Syrian '^9 In this century, of course, the transla- 
tion must havie been completed. But the difference 
of style existing' between the Gospels and the Acts 
and Epistles, renders it not merely probable that the 
translation was formed at different times ; but that 
the Gospels, as might naturally be conceived, were 
formed at a comparatively .early period. This sup- 
position is not merely confirmed by the peculiar 
character of the style, which is more pure than that of 
the Acts and Epistles, and bears internal evidence of 
greater antiquity ^"^"i but by the absence of Eusebius's 
sections, which cannot be supposed to have existed 
in the Palestine text, when the version of the Gos- 

^cilicet amhorum interpretationes convejilimt, quod scepe contigit.*" 
The leai-ned authour, lb. § ix. p. 20. raises some objections to 
the notion of a Syriack version, from the Hebrew having ex- 
isted in this early age; which he deduces from the circum- 
stance of this version containing some Greek terms. But no- 
thing can be concluded from hence against the existence of the 
Syriack Vulgate at this period, as the Syriack language, in 
which it is written, abounds in Greek terms. In the following 
observation, he seems to answer his own objections on this 
point : Id. ibid. p. 20. ** Verum non desunt exempla alia quae 
Iiulc opinion! adversari videntur, ut est illud ex Didymo, Gen. 
viii. 7. 2y§os" 8% ofMoiojs r'^ *KXXriVJKYi* x/y" 7*Si * ixirir^t^s/ 

'^? Vid. supr. p. 25. n. *3* 

*'® Simon. Hist, des Vers. chap. xv. p. 187. " Au rePtft 
cette Version n'est pas tout-a-fait si simple dans les Epttres de 
St. Paul, que dans les Evangiles* Comme le stile, de ces Epi- 
tres est obscur et embarrasse, I'Interprete Syrien s'y est donne 
plus de libertc, s'eloignant quelquefois de son original. II 
s'emancipe des les premiers mots de PEpitre aux Romans," &c. 
'Comp. Marsh. Michael. Vol. II. chap. vii. J. 8. p. 40.. 



( 405 ) 

pels was made. AH these considerations taken to- 
gether^ claim for the first part of this version an 
antiquity not less remote than the third century. 
And this assumption is rendered more probable^ by 
many corroborating* circumstances. The establish- 
ment of the Palestine school under Origen excited 
a spirit of literary exertion among the Syrians at 
this period^ and directed their attention to biblical 
criticism '7*. With the declension of the Greek 
power in the East^ on the extension of the Roman 
conquests to the remotest bounds of the civilized 
^vorld^ the authority of the Greek language simulta- 
neously declined '7*. The Syrians now began to cul- 

"' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxx. p. 294. 1. 27. 

TZ ^\ 'n^»7£vi» sir* Tvq KctK7cx.fiia.s Ta avv^^vi TrpxTiovltf ttoXT^oI 
y.vpiot (poilr^cc) 'fay fral^Qa^ uTToT^i'Trovliq. — sj — t?5 TTfoJigaj- cTTrtfoJJj T>)r 

'^* The peculiar attention with which the natives of Pales- 
line and Syria cultivated Greek, may be collected from the 
writings of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophllus, &c. who wrote 
in that language. The principal writers among the Jews a» 
well as Christians, neglecting their vernacular tongue, devoted 
themselves exclusively to the cultivation of that language, as U 
apparent from the works of Josephus and Philo, who are sup- 
posed, particularly the latter, to have had very little knowledge 
of Hebrew or Chaldee. Bardesanes, in the second century, 
wrote in Syriack ; but to obtain his works a circulation in Pa- 
lestine, it was found necessary by his disciples to translate them, 
into Greek; Euseb. ibid. Lib. IV. cap. xxx. p. 194. 1.16 — 

lxuvu)T0il6f Tt? uvr)ff 'iv re TY) 'Lvocov ^cov^ ^laXziai'^uioaos^—^"-^ 
eixMytjf cTvrrioraiixsvoqf Tr) olxs/^ TiapB^ojKc y7^c!/r]r] rs x^ 7§a(p''J5f 
f^fla. xj 'K'Ki'ruv Iri^uv aini cvfy^xiJif^oiruf* «j ol yvufiixcn {'jr'KiTroi 



C 406 ) 

tivate tBeir native tongue, and one of the first efforts 
to give it a written existence, was employed in con- 
verting the best of books, into the vernacular lan- 
guage. Bui ihe peculiar character of that part of 
the version which was first formed, conveys a proof, 
which is at once demonstrative of its antiquity, and 
of its freedom from later corruption ; a prooi which 
is rendered decisive, by the wide and early disper- 
sion of this translation, which rendered its general 
corruption impossible '^^ From the extraordinary 

Tr,s lu^eov p.ila^i^'k'nitacat (pwvyjr. A like observation may be 
made on the works of Ephrem Syrus, who wrote in the fourth 
century ; S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Ephr. TonL I. p. 
131. ** Ephraem, Edessenae ecclesiae diaconus, mulia Syro 
sermo?ie composuit : — Legi ejus de Spiritu Sancto volumen, 
quod quidam de Syriaca lingua verterat ; et acumen sublimis 
ingenii etiam in translatioue cognovi." As translations are 
rarely made into languages which are not more generally under- 
stood, than those in which the originals are written; these 
authorities very sufficiently evince the continuance of Greek 
in Syria, as low as the close of the fourth century. Towards 
the middle of the next century, matters assumed a different 
appearance ; the translation of the works of Ibas, Theodorit, 
Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Diodorus Tarsensis, &c. into Sy- 
riapk at this period, sufficiently declare, that this language had 
already begun to supersede the Greek: vid. supr. p. 344. n. ^'. 
A fevisal of the Syriack Version was consequently undertaken 
about this time by Poly carp, under the auspices of Philoxenus; 
probably with the view of extending the Eutychian heresy in 
Syria, for which purpose the original Version, which had been 
60 long used by Paulianists and Arians, was little calculated ; 
vid. supr. p. 37L D. *". p. 346. n. ^ 

'^^ Walt. Prolegoram. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. xiii. § 3. p. 
92. " Qui vero hac lingua [Syriaca] sacra sua celebrant; 
ut a doctiss. Brerewood recensentur, sunt; (1.) Maronita m 



( 407 ) 
s^reement of the primitive Syriack version and the 
Greek Vulgate, we of course deduce a like conclu- 

Monte Libano. . Habent isti Maronitae Patriarcham, qui 

«edem Patriarchalem plerumque habet in monte Libano, ali- 
quarido in Tripoli ;* Scripturas vero'et cultum pubricum lingua 
Syriaca, sive Maroniticsi — lingua scilicet quaj olim omnibus 
Vulgaris et adhuc vicis quibusdam et pagis per montem Liba- 
num manet, — (2.) Nestoriani a Nestorio Heresiarcha olim 
dicti, — qui magnatn ;;ar/on Orientis — hodie occupant: nam 
praeter regiones Bahylonice, Assyrice, Mesopotamice, Partliiw et 
Medice, in quibus frequentes dcgunt, etiam longe lateque e 
parte Septentrionali ad Cathaiam, et ex Australi Indos versus 
propagantur, Patriarcham habent in Muzal ad ripas Tigridis 
in Mesopotamia. (3.) Jacobitce dicti a Jacobo Syro, — cujus 
sectatores multi hodie conspiciuntur in Syriam, Cyprum, Mesa- 
potainianiy Babylo7iiam, Palccstinam dispcrsi. Patriarcham ha- 
bent, postquam ab Antiochena jurisdictione se subduxerunt, 
cujus sedes est in urbe Caramit, antiqua Mesopotamiae metro- 
poli, qui se Patriarcham Antiochenum vocat. — (4.) Coptce vel 
Coptitae qui (in religione, Jacobitae) per JEgyptum in sacris 
linguam Syriacam usurpant. — (5.) Indi sive S. Thomse Chris* 
tiani. — (6.) Hisce tandem addendi Christiani, qui insnlam Zoco- 
toram extra sinum Arabicum inhabitant : utrum Jacobitae sint 
an Nestoriani variant autores.-- — Ex hoc calculo liquet prcc» 
cipuas per totum Orientem Christianorum Ecclesias, longe lateque 
propagatas, Scripturas et officia sacra lingua Syriaca legere et 
celebrare," &c. That a dispersion of the Syriack Vulgate thus 
wide must have taken place at an early period, is apparent from 
the history of the Syrian Church. The commercial intercourse 
maintained between Arabia and India, opened a communica- 
tion between those countries, through which numberless chris- 
tian settlers extended themselves along the coast of Malabar 
to the island of Ceylon. The banishment of the Nestorians, 
and the subversion of the school of Edessa, whither the Per- 
sians resorted to study, under the Emperour Zeno, probably 
tended to increase the number of emigrants, and to extend the 
Syrian heresies as far eastward as India : vid. Beth-Arsem. Ap. 



C 408 ) 

sion to that which has been already deduced from a 
similar agreement between the vulgar Greek and 
the primitive Latin translation *^^ From hence we 
must infer, that the original text, which corresponds 
with those most antient versions, must be nearly 
coincident with that from which these versions were 
at least formed in part^, in the primitive ages. 

Assem. Biblioth. Orient, in lb. § vli. Tom. I. p. 204. Hence 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, who visited this country about the 
year 530, speaks of the Indian coasts, from Malabar to Ceylon 
or Sielediva, as possessing christian churches ; a bishop at 
that time residing at Calicut, who acknowledged the Arch- 
bishop of Persia as his Metropolitan. Cosm. Indicopl. Lib. III. 

Ill Trt TocTrpo^stvY) vYiau iv rn tc-ulifo, 'IvJia iv^a, to '\vffiKOv weX»yo? 
Iri, iu ExxXtjcrta Xpirt^voJi' Wiv iv.iX x^ KXt^^txgi x^ •Trtroi, hk o\^a. c\ x^ 
Vicetnipu' oi/,oiui xj «?<; t^v "KiyofAitrtv M«^E, eV^a to ^rgTre^i y»»eT«t» 
iu iv Tri KaXjavat o« T^ itotXii[A,svv)f kui £w»o"xo7ro? £r*v ociFo Tlt^^iooi 
^£»gOT«»a|M,£i'05. o/:<co»«$ xa» It T^ vy,a-u rr) KScTiefjiivj) Atocxo^j^as K^Ta t* 
tcvro 'h^iKov cr£^ayo^ Ap. Montf. Nov. Collect. Patrr. Tom. II. 
p. 179. e. Montfauc. Praef. in Cosm. Topograph, cap. iii. p. x. 
** In altera Indiae ora, quam hodie Malabaricam dicimus, has 
urbes et emporia celebriora erant, Sindu, Orrotha, Calliana : 
eadem ut videtur, quam hodie Calicutum vocamus ; Sibor et Male, 

quinque emporia habens . Ex Male baud dubie, Malabar 

factum est. Nam Male barr continens Male significat.'* Id. 
ibid. § vi. " Jn Male supra memorato emporlo., aderat Chris- 
tianorum Ecclesia ; gimiliter in Sielediva Insula Ecclesia chris-^ 
iianorum, cum presbytero et diacono in Perside ordinatis. 
Item apud BactroSy Hunnos — , reliquos IndoSy Persarmenos, 
MedoSy Elainitas, atque in iota Persidis regione Ecdesice injinitce 
eranty Episcopi, christianique populi magno numero, martyres 
jnulti, monachi, hesychastae. Similiterque in insula quae Dios-« 
f oridis vocabatur, nunc Zocotora vitiato nomine, in mari Indico 
cita — clerici erant ex Perside missi, atque Eccleda christiauQ* 
yum, qui ibidem magno numero versabantur." 
»7> \ id. supi*. p. \5h &c. 



( 409 ) 

The testimony of those antient and separate wit- 
nesses, the primitive Latin and Syriack Versions, 
now bears down the scale with accumulated weight 
in favour of the Greek Vulgate^ which is confessedly 
supported by the uninterrupted testimony of tradition, 
for fourteen hundred years. Beholding the age of 
this text identified with the fourth century, by the 
concurring" testimony of manuscripts, versions, and 
fathers, let us, by a single glance of thought, con- 
nect that period with the times of the Apostles, and 
those in which we live. Let us consider the uni- 
formity which pervades the Manuscripts of every 
age, ascending from the present period to those 
times, and their coincidence with the writings of 
those Fathers, who flourished in the intervening 
ages. Having this positive proof of the integrity 
of tradition, for the whole of that period, in which 
the testimony of Manuscripts can be ascertained ; 
let us then follow up that of the authorised Ver- 
sions of the oldest Churches, which we are infallibly 
assured were received in the age where the testi- 
mony of Manuscripts fails. Supported by these 
vouchers, which carry us up to a remote and inde- 
finite period; let us consider the history of the ori- 
ginal text, for the period which remains unto the 
apostolical age. Let us estimate the possibility of 
its having been corrupted in the earliest ages ; of 
its having been sophisticated by Lucianus, who pro- 
fessed merely to transmit the vulgar text, and who 
possessed no authority to impose a sophisticated text 
jipon his contemporaries. Observing that St. Jerome 
attests the prevalence of l^uciaaus's text at the ^ery 



( 410 ) 

period to which our demonstrative proofs of its in- 
tegrity extend *^^ ; let us then remember by how few 
links the chain of tradition is connected from the 
age in which he flourished to that in which the 
apostles wrote ; that the intervention of two persons 
connects the times of Athanasius with those of Ori- 
geUj and two more the times of Origen with those 
pf the Apostles. Finally observing, that amid the 
mass of evidence which has been adduced by mo- 
dem collatours against the vulgar edition, the co- 
incidences with this text are unnoticed, while the 
minutest deviations from it are sedulously noted 
down, let it be remembered, that every attempt to 

: impeach its general and doctrinal integrity, even 
in the most trivial points, has totally failed. With- 
out taking a comparative view of the hollowness of 
the system by which the rival text which is opposed 
to it is sustained, I conceive, that to make the just 

.inference which flows from these premises in favour 
of tjhe integrity of the Greek Vulgate, requires not 
so much a sound judgment as an honest mind. 
' In closing the vindication of the Received Text, 
nothing more remains for its advocate, than to reply 
briefly to the charge of incompetency which has 
been urged against those by whom it was formed. 
The pedigree of this text has been traced by a few 
steps to prasmus'^*^; and a want of the most neces- 

'" Vid. supr. p. 71. &c. 

''* Griesb. Pfolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. I. p. xxxiii, 
': •* Liceat jam tribus verbis Recepti Textus genealogiam repe- 
' tere. Editiones recentiores sequuntur Elseviriaoam, &c. ut 
supr. p. 1, n.:\ 



( 411 ) 

sary helps to correct the text, of which it is con- 
ceived he was destitute, has been urged as a suffi- 
cient proof of the inefficiency of his attempt ^'7^ 
Of Manuscripts, it is said, he'kn^wUtde; having 
possessed none of those antient copies of which his 
successours have made so much use in amending the 
text •7^ Of Versions he was even more ignorant; 
having been wholly unacquainted with those of the 
Oriental and Western Church '79. And of Fathers 
he made little use, having merely fallowed Athana- 
sius, Nazianzen, and Theophylact, without being 
conscious of the valu^ of Clement, Origen, and Cy- 
ril's testimony, in correcting the text*^**. 

"' Id. ib. p. xxxiv. ** Erasmus vero textum, ut potuit, con- 

stituit e codicibus paucissimis et satis recentibus, omnibus subsi- 

diis destitutus, praeter versionem Vulgatani interpolatam,et scripta 

nonullorum, sed paucorum nee accurate editorum Patrum." 

*'3 Id. ibid. p. viii. " Omnibus psene subsidiis destituti fue- 

yu^t^ . Nam primo nullum habuerunt ex vetustissimis 

illis atque praestantissimis Codicibus, quorum excerptis nos janr 
gaudem.us, qui innumeris in locis genuinam lectionem exhibert, 
eamque contra recentiorum librorum futile testimonium for- 
tissime vindicant. '* , 

"» Id ibid. ** Deinde caruerunt Versionibus Orientalibus 
omnibus, Syriaca utraque, Persicis, Arabicis, Copticis, -^thi- 
opica, Armenica, ut Gothicam taceam et Slavonicam. Xatina 
certe usi sunt translatione, fateor: sed partim innumeris gra- 
vissimisque mendis corrupta, partim recentiore tantum ilia 
Vulgata, non vero longe praestantiore Antehieronymiana, quae 
Itald vulgo dicitur." 

»3^ Id. ibid. ** Denique caruerunt libris atque Commen- 
tariis Patrum Graecis plerisque, quorum summa est in re crir 
tica utilitas. Erasmus in secunda edition.e, Patrum scripta 
quibus usus est enumerans, Athanasium nominat, Naiianzenuia 
atque Theophylactum. Quanti vero roomen^i siut in crisi sacra 



( 412 ) 

How far the want of those necessary helps to cor* 
rect the Greek text^ have occasioned the failure of 
Erasmus^ may, I conceive, be easily appreciated 
from the use which has been made of them by those 
who have succeeded him in that task. The merit 
of the Vulgar edition which he published, and of 
the Corrected Text, which M. Griesbach has edited, 
must be decided by the internal evidence : and with- 
out extending our attention beyond the three doc- 
trinal texts to which M . Griesbach has limited the 
lum of his important improvements, there is now 
little reason to doubt which of those candidates for 
praise is best entitled to our approbation. Had the 
late editour established the integrity of his text, in all 
other points, in which he has disturbed the received 
reading; there can be no room to question, (until 
the principles of common sense become as inverted 
as the theory of sacred criticism), that the advan- 
tages which the text would have gained from his 
corrections, would be more than counterbalanced 
by the disadvantages which it has sustained from 
his corruptions. But in this undertaking, I am free 
to conclude, until what I have advanced to the con- 
trary is refuted, he has totally failed. His system 
appears to be as unsound in theory, as it is deleteri- 
ous in practice. Among all the passages which have 
been examined, and which include the whole of 
those of any importance in which he has violated 

Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Cyrillus uterque, aliiquc per- 
multi, vel tironibus, notum est. Quid igitur exspectari poterat 
ab editoribus Novi Testamenti qui tot subsidiis plane iiecc*su- 
riis destituerentur J** 



( *13 ) 

the integrity of the sacred canon, he has not ad* 
duced a single witness whose testimony is admissi- 
ble^ while he has set aside numbers^ whose credit, 
I scruple not to assert, he was unable to impeach; 

Nor let it be conceived^ in disparagement of the 
great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely 
fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to 
perpetuate the tradition on which he received the 
sacred text, he would have done as much as could 
be required of him, and more than sufficient to put 
to sliame the puny efforts of those who have vainly 
laboured to improve upon his design. His extraor- 
xhnary success in that immortal work may be clearly 
traced to the wisdom of the plan on which he pro- 
ceeded. And little more is necessary than to follow 
him in his defence of that plan, in order to produce, 
in his own words, a complete refutation of the ob- 
jections on which he has been condemned; and a 
full exposure of the shallowness of those principles, 
on which his labours would be now superseded, by 
a different system of critical emendation. 

With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable 
that lie was acquainted with every variety which is 
known to us; having distributed them into two 
.principal classes, one of which corresponds with the 
y Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican 
jnanuscript'*'. And he has specified the positive 

. *^' Erasm. Nov. Test. Prsef. [p. xviii.j ed. Basil 1546. 
-" Hie obiter illud incidit admoneudum, esse Graecorum quos- 
u3am Novi Testamenti Codices ad Latinorum exeniplaria emen- 
.datos. — Et nos olim in Jiujusmodi Codicem incidiaius, et talis 
adhuc dicitur adservari in b.il>lioiheca Potiiificicu-' Hoc eo vi- 



( 414 ) 

rrotmcfs on ^Yhich he received the one arid rejected 
the other. The former was in possession of the 
Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin ; 
judging from the internal evidence, he had as good 

gam est admonere, quod jam nunc quidam jactant se trecenta 
loca notasse ex Codice bibliothecce PontificicB, in quibus ille cou" 
sonat cum nostra Vulgata editione LafinOy cum mea dissonat. 
Quod si nos urgent autoritate Vaticanae bibliothecae, Codex 
tptem secufus est in Novo Testamento Franciscus Cafdinali^ 
quondam Toletanus, non modo fuit ejusdem bibliotheccey verum 
etiam a Leone X missus est, ut hoc veluti bonae fidei exemplar 
imitarent. Atque is pene per omnia consentit cum mea editionCf 
dissentiens ab eo quem nunc quidam nobis objiciunt majusculis 
descriptum liieri§. Ab illo enim dissentiat oportet, si consentit 
cum Vulgata Latinorum editione.'* In those two instances we 
have exemplars of the two principal Classes into which the 
Greek MSS. have been divided. That the MS. of the Pope's 
library, which is written in the large or uncial letter, and 
which agrees with the Latin Vulgate, can be no other than the 
celebrated Vatican MS. will not admit of a doubt, after turning 
to n. ^^ supr. p. 61. This MS. was examined for Erasmus by 
Paulus Bombasius, and has accordingly had some influence o» 
his edition ; vid. ^rasra. Apolog. ad. Jac. Stunic. Op. Tom. IX, 
p. 353. a. ed 1706. Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxii. 
The MS. which was sent by P. Leo X. to Cardinal Ximenes, as 
the exemplar of the Complutensian New Testament, is conceived 
to have _bi|en lost with the other MSS. used in compi ing that 
edition. The character of the text of this MS. is not only 
ascertainable from the Complutensian edition, but from a MS* 
preserved in the Bodleian library, (Laud. .2. noteJ by,M» 
Griesbach, God. 51.) which harmonizes with it in an extraor- 
dinary manner: vid. Mill. Prolegommi in Nov. Test. nn, 1092. 
1437. As the Vatican MS. is of the Piilestine text, and the 
Complutensian Codex of the Byzantine ; Erasmus in being ac» 
qualnted with those texts seems to have possesised ample mate* 
dais for revising the New Testament. 



( 415 ) 

reason to conclude the Eastern Churcli had not cor- 
loipted their received text, as he had grounds tosus^ 
pect the Rhodians, from whom the Western Church 
derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them 
to the Latin Vulgate'^*. One short insinuation 
which he hais thrown out, sufficiently proves, that 
his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep i 
and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the^ 
age in which the Vulgate was formed, the Church, 
he W2^s aware, was infested with Origenists and Ari- 
ans '*' ; an affinity between any nianuscript and that 
version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that 
its text was corrupted. So little dependance was 
he incHned to place upon the authority of Origenj 

*** Id. ibid. [p. xxi.] " Si Graecis in animb fuisset depra* 
vare Codices suos, his potissmum locis depravassent, in quibus 
a nobis dissentiunt, veluti de processione Spiritus, de aqualitate 
ilium Personarum, de Primatu Romani Pontificis, de ritu con- 
jSecrandi et tradendi baptismum et eucharistiani, de cbnjugio 
eacerdotum, aut si quidaliud est ejusraodi: at in his nobis con- 
sentiunt. Nee ullus locus proferri valet^ qui hoc nomine szis- 
pectus haleri possit. Ego magis suspicor, si quid mutatum 
est in Graecorum libris, id a Latinis exemplaribus fuisse pro- 
fectura, posteaquam Romana Ecclesia ccepit absorbere Grae» 
ciam. Nee tota divulsa est a nobis Grsecia: Rhodus et Creta 
Christum agnoscit, agnoscit Romanum Pontificem : cur horura 
libris diffidimus. Et ab his pot'issimum nobis veniunt exetU" 
plaria*J* ':■.-, 

'*' Id. ibid. ** Risit olim Helvidlum Hieronymus, qui sibi 
stultissime persuaserat, Grcecos codices esse corruptos : ac dic- 
tum hominis stultius esse piitat, quam ut sit argumentis reM- 
lendum. Et tamen jam tu7n Orietis Jerme omnis haeresibus for" 
vebat Arianorum et Origenistarum, Ab iis magis timendum erat 
exemplaj ibus, quam a schismaticis,** 



( «6 ) 

who is the pillar and ground of the Corrected 
edition. 

With regard to VersionSj it is true he was unac- 
quainted with the antient Italick and later Oriental 
translations. But were the history of those versions 
known to the objectour^ I trust they woul^ be 
scarcely opposed to the system of one^ who was 
aware of the necessity of avoiding the contagion of 
the Arian and Origenian heresies. With the pri- 
mitive Italick and Syriack Versions he was unac- 
quainted ; but I yet remain to be informed, of what 
other use they could have been made, than to con- 
firm him in the plan which he had judiciously cho- 
sen. I have yet to hear of a single text which they 
could have led him to adopt, which is not found in his 
edition. His whole dependance was rested on the 
Greek and Latin Vulgate ; and if we may believe 
himself, he used some antient copies of the latter*^** 
Of these he made the best use : confronting their 
testimony, and estimating the internal evidence of 

*^* Erasm. ibid. [p. viii.] " Nos in prima recognitlone 
quatuor Graecis [Codd.] adjuti sumus : in secunda quinque j 
in tenia prseter alia accessit editio Asculana : in quarta, prsesto 
fuit Hispaniensis. Deinde consultis ium pe/vetustis turn emeri' 
datis aliquot Latince linguce volumhiibus : nec hoc contenti dis- 
cussis et exploratis probatissimis autoribus," &c. The follow- 
ing declaration, while it proves that Erasmus was not unduly 
influenced by the Latin Vulgate, seems to indicate that he was 
not unacquainted with the peculiar readings of the Old Italick 
version ; Id. ibid. [p. xi.] " Sunt in quibus nostra Vulgata. 
magis probatur editio, ant Amhrosiana lectio^ quam Grffici Co- 
dices. Et tamen consentientibus omnibus Graecis exemplari- 
bus, quoniam ilia mutare non lictiit Latina accomodavimus, n# 
non responderent, quum in hoc ipsum adderentur/* 



( 417 ) 

the context with the external testimony of the East- 
ern and Western Churches, he thence ascertained 
the authentick text of Scripture *^^ A particular 
vindication of this part of his plan cannot be de- 
manded from me, who have advanced so much to 
prove, that it affords the only rational prospect of 
ascertaining- the primitive or genuine text of the 
New Testament; whatever aid may be derived 
from other versions and texts '^^ in defending con- 
tested readings. 

'^5 Id. ibid. " Scio res sacras reverenter ac religiose tractan- 
das, et idcirco licet in infima functione versantes, tamen omni 
quia licuit circumspectione sumus usi. Contulimus utriusque li?i' 
gu(£ vetustissimos ac ])^obatissimos Codices , nee eos sane paucos. 
Excusissimus veterum ac recentiorum Commentarios, turn Gr£e- 
cos turn Latinos. Observavimus quid diversi legant. Pensi- 
tavimus ipsius loci sententiam, atque ita demura pronunciavi- 
mus quidem, sed lectorera admonuimus, suum cuique judicium 
liberum relinquentes. 

^^^ The want of the Syriack Version, and of pure copies of 
the Latin Vulgate, has been objected as essential defects to 
Erasmus, in revising the text of the New Testament. As both 
were used by Lucas Brugensis, together with the Greek, in 
correcting the text of the Latin Version ; and his corrections 
are subjoined to the Bible of Sixtus V, ed. Antw. 1681 : a 
comparison of Erasmus's readings with the Corrections of L, 
Brugensis, p. 8L will best illustrate how far the former has 
failed, from the want of those antient versions. I shall subjoia 
a short specimen of texts from the first ten chapters of St. 
Mattl^w, in which Erasmus and Lucas Brugensis agree with 
the Greek Syriack and old copies of the Vulgate, against the 
authority of the modern copies v/hich contain the Received 
Text of the Romish Churches. Matt. iii. 10. excidetur — mit- 
tetur. Vulg. exciditur — mittitur. Erasm. Brug, lb. iv. 6. man- 
davit. Vulg. mandabit. Erasm, Brag, Ibid. \Q. umbrae, Vulg. 

E e 



( 418 ) 

In using* the testimony of antient Fathers^ it ap- 
pears never to have entered his conception, that any 
utihty could be derived from collating them verba- 
tim with the text of Scripture. Before the labours 
of modern criticks, the monks of Upper Egypt and 
Palestine, who divided their time between this pro- 
fitable employment, and the perusal of Origen's 
speculative theology, w ere probably the only per- 
sons who ever engaged in this interesting pastime. 
Of the value of the works of those early writers, in 
ascertaining and vindicating the doctrinal integrity 
of the text, no man was more conscious than Eras- 
mus. With this view he read over the works of 
the principal writers and commentatours'^^ ; be- 
queathing the task of collating their quotations with 
the text of Scripture, to his more dull and diligent 
successours. With what effect he engaged in such 
an office, those who are curious to be informed, will 
best ascertain, by examining the text which he has 
published. The advocates of the Received Text 
have little to apprehend from a comparison w ith the 
Corrected Text, by which it is now supposed to be 
wholly superseded. In all those passages in which 

et umbra. Erasm. Brii^. lb. v. 24. reconciliari. Vulg. recou- 
ciliare. Erasm. Bnig. Ibid, offercs. Vtdg, oft'ei*. Erasm, Brug» 
•lb. vi. 22. corporis tui — oculus tuus. Vulg, corporis — oculus. 
Erasm. Brug, Ibid. 33. quaerite ergo. Vtilg. queerite autem, 
Erasm. Brug. lb. viii. 9. constitutus. Vulg. deest. Erasm. Brug, 
Vid. Erasm. mi. in 11. 

'2^ Vid. supr. p. 417. n. '^5^ Erasm. ibid. [p. xvili.] *' Illud 
potius spectandum quid legerint veteres Graeci, Origenes, Atha- 
nasius, Basiiius, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Chrysostomus, Cyril- 
lus, ac Theophylactus,'* &c. 



( 419 ) 

the integrity of the sacred text has been defended, 
the vindication of Erasmus's text is inseparable from 
that of the vulgar edition *^^ 

It is notj however^ my intention to assert^ that I 
conceive the text of Erasmus absolutely faultless '^' 
but with the exception of some places^ in which the 
reading of the Greek Vulgate has not been preserv- 
ed '^''^ I know not on what authority we might ven- 

*^^ In those passages (Jf which a vindication has been offered, ^ 
supr. p. 239. sqq. p. 251. sqq. p. 372. sqq. p. 380. sqq. p. 358. 
n. ^». p. 359. n. ^°°. p. 36 J. n. '°\ p. 390. n. '^'. the Received 
Text follows the reading of Erasmus's edition. 

*^' As the MSS. which contain the Byzantine text are gene- 
rally coincident in their readings, vid. supr. p. 118. n. *^ p. 
126. n. '^°. it is little wonderful that Erasmus, having made 
choice of that text, should have published an edition, which 
corresponds with the text which has been since discovered to 
prevail in the great body of Greek manuscripts. But as every 
manuscript has some peculiar readings, it can be no less extra- 
ordinary, that some phrases should have been admitted by Eras- 
mus into his text, though destitute of the support of the gene- 
rality of manuscripts. These, however, are so few and inconside- 
rable, as to be scarcely deserving of notice. After some search 
after those which are retained in the Received Text, the fol- 
lowing are the only instances of interpolations, which I have 
been enabled to discover in the Gospels; Mat. xii. 35. tJJj 
xag^/fltf. Mar. iv. 4. re «^av2. lb. vi. 44. uitrsl* lb. xvi. 8. 
rxx^' lb* X. 20. iAoi»>ov. Joh. XX. 29. ©w/xa : to which we 
may add the following instances of mere expletives ; Mat. iv. 
18. 'l»5o-y?. lb. viii. 5. TO/ Ijja^S. ^J). xiv. 19. *^* lb. xxv. 44. 
avra, Luc. iv. 8. yocq. 

^^^ Several readings of this kind have been admitted by M, 
Mattha^i, into his edition of the New Testament, on the autho- 
rity of the Moscow MSS. They are generally prevalent in the 
uncial MSS. which contain the vulgar Greek, and ai'e cou- 
jBtantly supported by the following authorities, Byz, PaL ^g^ 



( 420 ) 

tiire to correct it. The Egyptian and Palestine 
texts haye been so often convicted of errour, in 
points where the Byzantine text admits of the fullest 
defence^ that their testimony^ when opposed to the 
vulgar Greeks cannot be entitled to the smallest 
attention '^'. And when the verbal integrity merely 

It, 1. Syr, 1. The principal Greek MSS. in which they are 
founel, are the Alexandrine, Cyprian, Vatican, and Moscow, 
which are designated by the letters A, K, S, Mt. V: tliey like- 
wise occur in the MSS. marked F*, G, H, Mt. B, H. in those 
marked B, C, D, L. and may be generally traced to the writings 
of St. ChrysoStome. There can be little doubt that those read- 
ings possess great antiquity ; but we must not necessarily infer 
that they are genuine. It is not impossible that they may have 
originated in the edition of Eusebius ; thai they may have been 
thence retained in the revisal of St. Athanasius; and have thus 
maintained their place in the Byzantine text, when that text 
was restored at Constantinople under Nectarius and St. Chry- 
sostome, who succeeded to the government of the Byzantine 
Patriarchate, on the suppression of the Arian party. The in- 
fluence of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostome will suffici- 
ently account for their reception in the Italick and Syriack 
translations, on which it is certain the text of Eusebius 
had some influence ; as must be collected from the omission 
of some remarkable passages in those translations which are 
omitted in the text revised by Eusebius. Conf. supr. p. 98. 
n. *°^ p. 92. n. ^°'. And this notion, it may be observed by 
the way, is strengthened by conformity of the Alexandrine 
MS. and the Syriack Version. Conf. supr. p. 224-. n. '°. p. 350. 
n. ^^ Whatever opinion b^ formed of those readings, which 
generally consist in peculiarities which can be only expressed 
in Greek, they are scarcely worth contesting; as Ihey may be 
retained or rejected from the Received Text, without affecting 
the Authorised Version, which we are principally concerned in 
defending. Vid. infr. pv 424?, n. ^^\ 
.*^* A number of those texts,' which are supported almost 



( 421 ) 
of the sacred text is concerned, no one, it is pre- 
sumed, will set the testimony of Versions and Pa^ 
thers in competition with that of the vulgar edition. 
I am well aware, that many manuscripts of reputed 
antiquity exist, which contain the Byzantine text, 
and yet differ from the Received Text set forth in 
the printed edition '^^ ; but numberless circumstances 
prohibit our correcting it on their authority. 

Nothing' can be more fallacious than the criteria 
by which the age of Greek manuscripts is in general 
determined*^'. To be written in the large or un- 

exclusively by the MSS. marked B, C, D, L, have been admitted 
by M. Griesbach into his Corrected Text; and tliey are among 
the most exceptionable of his emendations. 

'^^ Such are the MSS. marked A, K, S, Mt. V. &c. enume- 
rated in n. '^°. which sometimes differ from the great body of 
MSS. containing the Greek Vulgate, and at the same time co- 
incide with those containing the Egyptian and Palestine edi- 
tions. In this case, their testimony, though supported by other 
uncial MSS. is but of little weight, when set against that of 
the vulgar edition, for the reasons already specified: vid. supr. 
n. ^^°. 

**^ From this sentence, the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Cam- 
bridge MSS. are of course excepted; as.possessing claims to 
a remote antiquity, which cannot be reasonably disputed. It 
has been indeed urged, as an argument against the first of 
those MSS. that it approximates to the Arabick orthography in 
inserting the letter po in cert-ain words, contrary to the idiom 
of the Greek laniruage. It is difficult to answer this objection 
until we are acquainted with the extent to which it may be 
urged. If I am not wholly deceived, it is confined to instances 
like the following, which are noted by Dr. Woide in his various 
readings : Mar. xii. 4-0. Luc. xx. 47. ^';?iw,4'0^/aj. Job. v. 43. 
?.y,lxA^Bo-^at. lb. xvi. 14, 15. X'^/x^./Jau lb. xvi. 24. Act. i. 8. 
ii. 38. ^r.ij^EjBe^ &c. But I apprehend we need not go beyond 



( 423 ) 

cial character, without accents or spirits^ is am6ng 
the most decisive mai'ks of antiquity. But I would 

the Greek radical to an Arabick root for a solution of this diffi- 
culty. That /« is retained in >,r.-^{lai, AryJ/Eo-Si, ^^rj/ovlai, I con- 
ceive is simply owing to its being found in XufM^oivu ; which was 
regularly/ inflected with the characteristick, fji. ; >Afji0uttf, \ym." 
iJ/o/>tat, >^i'^rnji.(pu. Whether this mode of inflexion was peculiar 
to the fourth century, or to the city of Alexandria, there is un- 
fortunately no person alive to inform us. It is certainly not 
peculiar to the Alexandrine MS. since it prevailed in the Cot- 
ton Genesis ; as appears from the fragments of that most an- 
cient MS. which yields to no other in point of antiquity, when 
those are excepted which have been dug out of Herculaneum. 
The following instances will exemplify the above assertion ; 
Gen. XV. 24. T^r.^j.-^o^otu lb. xviii. 4. 7^vii/.(p%Tu, Ibid. 5. ^^/x- 
-^oyLOU, lb. xix. 17. (rv(x'rrcc^a,'hritJ^(p^ric. lb. xxi. 30. 37. 38. 40. 
>.Y,lA.-^vi. Vid. Walt. Bibll. Polyglott. Tom. VI. tract, xi. With 
respect to some other objections which have been urged against 
the antiquity of the Alexandrine MS. which are merely de- 
duced from its orthography, they admit of as easy an answer. 
The movers of these objections would do well to establish a 
criterion, in the first place, by which we may judge of the 
orthography of the fourth century; before they proceed to 
condemn a MS. as modern, which does not happen to accord 
with their notions respecting it. If we may judge of the Greek 
by other languages, its orthography could not have been fixed 
until a late period, and was then the work of grammarians. 
This supposition is fully confirmed by the antient inscriptions, 
which contain the only certain monuments of antient orthogra- 
phy within our reach; but which vary from themselves in num- 
berless instances. Vid. Gruter. Thesaur, Inscriptt. Apend. cap. 
xix. ed. 1516. Before some standard of language is established 
by the publication of a Dictionary, it is vain to look for uniform 
mity in the orthography of any nation. Among the Greeks the 
search must be preposterous, as the want of a knowledge of 
printing obliged them to employ a number of young persons of 
both sexes as copyists, besides scribes, who took down \i:ha<j 



( 423 ) 
submit It to the profound in antiquarian researcli, 
whether more can be safely inferred from these pe< 
culiarities, than that the use of spectacles was not 
known when those manuscripts were written; a 
larger character being- necessary for the eye, when 
impaired by age, as the defect admitted of no re- 
medy from optical assistance. And what evinces 
the uncertainty of such criteria, is the certamty of 
the fact, that the use of accents was well known ni 
the fourth century, previously to the existence of 
almost every manuscript with which we are ac- 
quahited; and the use of small connected characters 
must have been known at a much earlier period. 
St. Epiphanius describes the different accents which 
occur in the Greek, as addpted in copies of the sa- 
cred writings, in the age when he flourished '94^. 
And the accounts which are recorded of the notaries 
or swift- writers, which attended Origen*^^ and St. 

was dictated. Such was the custom in Origen's times, of 
whom Eusebius declares; Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxiii^ p. 

287. 1. 9. rcix^y('c(poi yu^ uvt^ ^^^i»s '^ ^i-l* '»'°'' aF'V°»' ^^e^Jaa^^ 

«K nM' o.^^^ ^ ^opoc^' ^-^^ ^'^ xaXXr/§a!pa?v ^^KTj/xs'varr. To per- 
sons of the latter description, the transcription of the Alexan- 
drine has been absolutely attributed; Grab. Prolegomm. m 
Septuagint. cap. i. § 5. [p. xxi.] ed. Oxon. 1707. " Huic 
ergo Theclae ej^isqiw in vita monastka sociis vel soctabus torn- 
tern nostrum attribuere nihil vetat,** &c. 

'9+ S. Epiphan. de Menss. et Pondd. Tom. II. p. 158. d., 

- Vid'supr. n. ■»'. conf. p. 367. n. '='. Origen speaks m 
the fpllowing terms of his T«x'-Vf'«?". f« "•'»'^ ^^'""^ ""^'S*^ 



( 424 ) 

Chrysostome'9^ when delivering their Homilies^ 
sufficiently prove^ that a small and connected cha- 
racter must have been in use^ when they lived, simi- 
lar to that which exists in the most modern manu- 
scripts. The little certainty which can of course 
be attained, in determining the age of manuscripts 
b^ the form, or the size of the letter, consequently 
deprives those which are written in the uncial cha- 
racter, of any paramount weight in determining the 
genuine text of Scripture. 

For some slight verbal and literal errours in the 
vulgar Greek, we must indeed compound, as the un- 
avoidable effect of careless transcription ; but thesa 
do not in the least impeach the integrity of the Re- 
ceived Text or Authorised Version. In the inves- 
tigation or defence of the truth, they must be lighter 
than dust in the balance. As they rarely if ever 
affect the sense, and even in this case do not relate 
to any point of doctrine or morals, they cannot prove 
the source of errour, or form the ground of contro- 
versy. They generally relate to verbal niceties, 
which are not capable of being expressed in a tran- 
slation *5^ ; and as such, cannot be deserving of the 

to wait, on his removal from Alexandria to Palestine ; Orig. 
Comm. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 101. d, xj ot auvYi^cis ^e ra%vy^a(poi 

'^^ Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. iv. p. 313. 1. 36. o^jroToi 

av% vTCO rouv 6^vyqd(pcov kKXvi<p'^iv%Sy oW? T£ ^a/x7rfo< x^ to Iwa- 
yuyov {.-/(jViBq^ ri hi" vvv 7\iyt\v, x. t. I. 

^*^ The nature of these deviations from the Received Text 
may be appreciated by the following examples, taken from the 
iirst ten chapters of St. Matthew; Mat. ii. 11. ivgau Rcc, eUov, 



( 425 ) 

smallest consideration from divines, of whatever im- 
portance they may be regarded by criticks or gram- 
marians. Whatever may have been the original 
reading of the sacred text, there can be httle doubt, 
that the inspired w^riters could find no difficulty in 
sanctioning the authorised reading. This inference 
is clearly deducible from their practice with respfct 
to the Septuagint'^^ : and indeed the variations dis- 
coverable in their quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment, and in their narratives of our Lord's dis- 
courses, must convince us, that they considered that 
strict literal accuracy which is now required in their 
works, as far beneath their attention. In the un- 
certainty which must attend every attempt to reco- 
ver their precise words and expressions, where the 
Greek manuscripts differ, the only wise plan appears 
to lie in preserving a settled state of things, and in 
retaining of course that reading which is most gene- 
ral. That reading, however, it is not disputed, is 
found in the vulgar text of our printed editions. 
Admitting, that in choosing a text among the manu- 
scripts which contain the vulgar Greeks we have fixed 

jK". S, &C, lb. V. 44. T8J y.H7Sylac,, ReC. ro7q aicrecriy. K. S. &C. 
lb. vii. 2. uvliy,{lpr,%a-{la,t, Rec. iJi,B\yiBi,crf.cn. K. S. V. &c. Ibid. 
14. 0T». Rec. Tt. IC S, V, &c. lb. viii. 8. 7.6yQv. Rec, >.iym, 
K. S. V. &c. lb. ix. 1 7. a/A^oTsp. Rec. «/>o(por£^&<. K. G. V. &c. 
Ibid. 18. IxSwv. Rec. ilarB>.^up. K.E. V. &c. Ibid. S6. lK-Kt>.v^im, 

Rec. la-y.vXiA.ivoi. K. G. S. Ib.X. 8. aett^h? y.cK.^xp((sTe, vsx^ii, tysipfls. 
Rec. vitcphi; lyvfilsy ^e^rpiJ? xaSapi^sTE. K. S. V, &C. Ibid. 28. 
ly.a.XiCuv — oly.nxy.iiq. Rec. iTrey.ciXsaav — ol-Knay.iie. K. S. V. &C. Ibid. 

28. 31. cpo^r.^^.TB. Rec. (po^eTa^i. K, S. V. &c, lb. xi. 16. tt^.sV 

giOK. Rec. wrai^toK. K. S. V. &C. 

'^8 Vid. supr. p. 310. sqq. 



( 426 ) 

on the worst, any advantage which would arise from a 
change, would be more than counterbalanced by the 
disadvantages of innovation. ■ But that the Greek 
Vulgate merits this character, is a point which will 
not be readily conceded by its defenders : and the 
advocates for an improved edition have infinitely 
more to advance in favour of their schemes of emen- 
dation, than they have been hitherto able to urge, 
before we can assign their Corrected Text the 
smallest authority. It is sufficient for us, that all 
their attempts to invalidate the integrity of the Re- 
ceived Text, in any point of the smallest importance^ 
have proved wholly abortive. The same plea will 
not be easily estabhshed in favour of the text which 
they have undertaken to advocate. If I am not 
greatly deceived, the corruption of this text may be 
not only demonstrated, but traced to the source in 
which it has originated. If this undertaking be 
practicable, as I trust it is, it must add the greatest 
weight to the authority of the Greek Vulgate : as it 
will annihilate the force of every objection which 
can be raised to the Received Text, from the oppo- 
sition of a rival edition; and by affording an ade- 
quate opportunity of vindicating the tradition of tlic 
Church, from every suspicion of corruption, add the 
last confirmation to that system, by which the autho- 
rity of the Received Text has been defended. 



SECTION VI. 



xHE plenary concession that the Byzantine text 
has preserved its integrity for fourteen hundred 
years^, leaves the unwarrantable assumption^ that it 
was corrupted in the earliest ages^ entitled to very 
little respect'. Were we destitute of proof on this 
subject, the bare probabilities of the case would be 
decisive of the point at issue : the task of proving 
the corruption of the Greek Vulgate, would at 
least devolve on those by whom the charge was 
urged. The avowed advocate of the Palestine text 
was fully aware, how necessary it was to the esta- 
blishment of his theory, that he should succeed in 
substantiating this charge against it. Having li- 
mited the corruption of the vulgar text to a period, 
in which it is impossible it could have remained 
undiscovered, had it more than a visionary exist- 
ence*, he believed the task was only to be attempted 

' Comp. p. 348. n, ^i. pp. 334, 335, nn. '^ et ". 

* The origin of the Byzantine recension, which M. Gries- 
bach considers a corruption of the primitive text, is referred 
by him to the close of the fourth, the fifth, and the following 
century ; cpnf. supr. p. 348. n. «'. p. 12G. n. '^°. Of the whole 
range of ecclesiastical history, this is the period of which ws 



( 428 ) 

in order to be achieved. His promises on this sub- 
ject stand recorded by his own hand^; what he has 
offered us in place of a performance,, stands attested 

possess the most full and explicit documents ; Ganier. Praef. In. 
Liberat. Diac. § ix. Scio scccula duoj quintmn sexfumgiie fera- 
cissima fuisse scriptormn, qui res easdem, quas Liberatus, me- 
moriae mandarint. Historiam confecermit praeter nomina- 

tissimos tres, Theodoretum Sozomenum et Socratem, Priscus 
Panites sub Theodosio juniore, Joannes -i^^^geates sub Zenone, 
et Candidus Isaurus sub Zenone, Eustathius Syrus sub Anas- 
tasio, Theodorus lector sub Justino seniore, Joannes rhetor, 
Basilius Cihx, et Zacharlas rhetor sub Justiniano, aliinue quo- 
rum meminerunt Evagrius Theophanes et Nicephorus priorum 
defioratores." That the writers of this period would not have 
been withheld by tender scruples from publishing a fact like 
that under review, if it had any existence, must be evident from 
the statement of the Palestine monks, who brought the charge 
of sophisticating the writings of the fathers, against thoge who 
engaged in the controversies of the Nestorians and Eutychians; 
vid. supr. p. 32G. n. "^ We accordingly fmd that Liberatus, 
whose prejudices certainly lay towards the party of Nestorius 
and Theodorit, [vid. Garner, ibid. § iii.] mentions a report, 
which was propagated, that Macedonius had corrupted the 
celebrated text, 1 Tim. iii, 16. A more convenient opportunity 
will occur hereafter, to examine how far this charge is founded 
in truth. As there is therefore no dearth of historical informa- 
tion at the period, to v.^hich M. Griesbach has fixed the cor- 
ruption of Scripture ; this single instance will fully demonstrate, 
that there was no disposition to suppress even a report on this 
subject, which had the smallest foundation in probability. 

3 Griesb. Nov. Test. Praef. p. xv. ed. 1777. ** Nolumus 
enim Critices Sacrse theoriam hie delineare id quod alio loco 
commodius fieri poterit." Id. ibid. n. *. " Primas hujus The- 
oriae lineas duxi in ' Curls meis in historiam Textus Epistola- 
rum Paulinarum Gracci' quarura specimen prius nuper Jenge 
1777. 4. \)\'odiit, postcrius ?nox sequdur*'* 



( 429 ) 

by the same voucher* His acknowledged incom- 
petence to substantiate his pointy consequently ren- 
ders the defence of the Greek Vulgate complete ; 
since this text, v/hich is amply supported by posi- 
tive proofs, is wholly unaffected by positive excep- 
tions. 

But the matter at issue must not be suffered to 
rest on these grounds. However defective the ad- 
vocates of the Alexandrine text have found their 
materials, in proving the corruption of the Byzan- 
tine; we find no such deficiency in returning the 
compliment on the Egyptian and Palestine. The 
corruptions of these texts, if I am not altogether 
deceived, may be clearly demonstrated, and traced 
to the very source from whence they have origi- 
nated. In prosecuting this object, the testimony of 
Origen may be wholly disposed of; and his evi- 
dence, which has been hitherto used to support the 
Palestine text, may be effectually employed to de- 
stroy its credit. If this object be attainable, as I 
conceive it is, it will annihilate the pretensions of 
the Palestine text, which, we have already seen^ is 

* Id. Symbb. Crltt. Prjcf. [p. xiv.] " Sed ingenue fateor, 
deesse mihi adhuc subsidia nonnulla, quibus carcre non potest, 
qui discrimina non solum ac indolem, sed, quod difficilius est, 
historiam etiam, origincs ac vicissitudines Recenaionum vete- 
rum omnium ita declarare vult, ut asserta sua pcvitis arbitris 
probaturum se esse sperare baud immerito qucat." The de- 
clining confidence' of our authour at length falls to the ground, 
and in his last declaration he states ; *' Origo rarianim textvs 
Nov. Test, recensionum^ deficientibus docunientis satis vetustis 
ac testimoniis, histon'ce dedari nequ-it,'* &c.- ut supr. p. 337- 



C 430 ) 

destitute of positive support from those who hare 
affected to uphold it. 

From what has been already adduced on the his- 
tory of the inspired text^ and the connected testi- 
mony of tradition^ it is apparent, that the received 
or vulgar text, as preserved by the orthodox, could 
not have undergone any considerable change from 
the apostolical age to the times of Origen ^ Some 
verbal errours probably arose in particular copies' 
from the negligence of transcribers^; but the testi- 
mony of this antient father, places it beyond all 
doubt, that at the period when he lived, the general 
integrity of the text had remained uncorrupted. 
His silence on this subject might be construed into 
a proof somewhat stronger than presumptive : the 
nice attention which he bestowed on the Septua- 
gint, renders it next to impossible, that any corrup- 
tion of the New Testament could have escaped his 
observation, if it really existed. He speaks, it is 
true, of a difference existing in the copies of his 
times ^. But this opinion he offers merely as a con- 

^ Vid. supr. p. 123. sqq. p. 207. sqq. 

•* Origen notes some variations of this kind ; Comment, in 
]Mat. Tom. III. p. 532. C. d. 5 y.h av Mar-Saros WETroj^jxs y.uTa. 7kv» 

Tuv uvnypd^uv to* * tots ^»ErE»^aTo' Wsov /ixsj'Tot oVt rmcc ruv 

uvnyfoiipuv tuv xctru MocTBaTov 'i^si t©, * swsTi/xjjafv.' Conf. lb* 
p. 588. b. p. 597. d. But from these examples, and all others 
that I have observed, I cannot see how it can be concluded, 
that Origen found these variations in the received text : as he 
indiscriminately quotes, in his Commentaries, from the copies 
vised by the hereticks as well as the orthodox ; vid. supr. p. 330. 
n.'^^ conf. infr.p. 431. n. '°. 

^ Orig. ibid. p. 671* t» twl ^t ^tj^o^ot* woXX-w ysyoviv w rut 



{ 431 ) 

Jeciure^ grounding it on the diversity observable in 
the accounts which the different Evangelists give of 
the same incident*; and it occurs in a work which 
is of very little authority^ as written while Origen's 
opinions were far from settled^ or deserving of any 
attention''. His opinion must be taken from a 
different part of his writings; and in his last and 
greatest work he explicitly states, that he knew 
of no persons but the followers of Marcion and 
Valentinus, who had corrupted the Scriptures '". 
As this is the latest opinion which he has delivered 
on this subject^ it must be taken as his definitive 
sentence. 

To some period subsequent to the asra of Origen, 
we must consequently fix the first change which 
took place in the received text of Scripture. And 

d)iny^x<pctjv Cix'^o^oi, tVrs utto §a$f/A»aj Tivuv yfcctpiut^ tin aTTd 

^ Id. ibid. p. 670. a. vTro-voEia^ai ^u-joicki, wq ay. Itfo tS SftflJjfoj 
IvIaySa 9raf£t?i'^9'^«i, aAA' vtto Tiyo; tviv u)i^i(3inx.v /1/.19 voJjcraj^of tut 
?^iyo|xe^cuV, TToo^s'^sXa^xL' o-vvccyo^ivait ^\ trt vTiovoYi'yii t5 frpoali- 
^cHa^ai £)/i(x.v^oc to* * ayaTrrianq rov wXTjc-iov ca aq ffiuvlovj* h tuv 

rcc7<; xuTcc Tov troTTov i'jiO Ta 'IviiT^ Trapa^'vjJpOiicrai? hTQ>.KTq x. T. s« 

Conf. p. 671.a. b. 

» Vid. supr. pp. 367, 368. et nn. in loc. 

" Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. II. cap. xxvii. Tom. I. p. 411. bt 

//.Blocy^a^cc^GcyloiS Is to Kvxfyi'kiov aAA«? ax ol^a, -'; rnq dvh M«p- 

hiyofA-tvoy « Ttf Xoyn Ir^iv 'iynXriiAO,' aXKa. ruM To7.ur,advlcov pa^tu^m 

y^aaci ra zvocTyiXioc. Conf. D. Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. Sect. 11. 
cap. ix. § 2. p. 06. 



( 432 ) 

of such a change we have an explicit account^ iit 
the statement which is transmitted of the editions 
published by Hesychius and Lucianus": against 
which^ a charge has been preferred by St. Jerome, 
that they were interpolated, at least in the Gos- 
pels '^ 

Whatever may have been the alterations which 
Lucianus and Hesychius introduced into the sacred 
writings, they must be clearly attributed to the in- 
fluence of Origen's writings. Previously to his 
times, the inspired text had undergone no altera- 
tion ; and they revised it not many years subsequent 
to the publication of his Hexapla. As he had la- 
boured to supersede the authorised version of the 
Old Testament, he contributed to weaken the au- 
thority of the received text of the New. In the 
course of his Commentaries, he cited the versions 
of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the 
former part of the Canon *^ he appealed to the au- 
thority of Valentinus and Heracleon ^^ on the latter. 

'* Vitl. snpr. p. 72. n. "7. 

'* Vid. supr. p. 100. n. **°. 

*^ The following comparative character of these versions, 
and the vulgar text, is given by Origen, who constantly quotes 
the former in his Commentaries ; Comment, in Joan. Tom. IV. 
p. 141. b. TO ^i 'o[ji,oiov TTEpt rd oiiofA(iia, Gi^acXfAO. HoXkoL'/ja Ta tiot^a 

TOK utliyfo^ois avruv rot riyiin^ot cvyy.pivaflsc, [xoc^up'/i'^£i(7iv J'K'o toJv 

Conf. infr. n. '\ 

** Heracleon followed Valentinus ; and many of the errourst 
of those writers, whose opinions are examined by Origen in his 
Commentary on St. John, were adopted from Apocryphal 



( 433 ) 

While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, 
which had been made by the hereticks, he detracted 
from the authority of that text which had been re- 
ceived by the orthodox. Some difficulties which 
he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelists, 
he undertook to remove^ by expressing his doubts 
of the integrity of the text. In some instances he 
ventured to impeach the reading of the New Tes- 
tament on the testimony of the Old *^ and to con- 
vict the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of 
another '^ : thus giving loose to his fancy, and in- 
dulging in many wild conjectures^ he considerably 

books : Orig. Comment, in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 66. b. Biawi ^} 

hsuvx ^inyafASvov TO* * vetvla. St awrS tyitelo' k. t. I. Conf. ibid, 
p. 117. e. Id. ibid. p. 226. woXy ^i Wi-v vvv va^xTf^esrBxt t5 
'H^ayJ\euvoi; Ta pTrt utto tS Iw»y£y^a/w,ft6i'» ' TJeTfH Kn^vyfjkuloi* 

*s Id. Comment, in Matt. Tom. III. p. 747. c. y.(\a. ruVrec 

l^'^oiffa^iv i^ TO* * na-avvot ru vtu Aoc^to, evMyvnAsvof o IfxpyLsyo^ iv 

i»o(jt.otli Kvpitf, ua-avva, h Tor? v-i^iroi<;* . 'htu h f^ eix^v v) 'E^poiUh 

XeIk* otvv» o(.^m»i wamnoiv, uvvoc u^uvxX' occrui' uvuot /3a^a;jj u$$cic^ 

£voc,fy&\ici fA.r) tl^oTuv rriv ^'taXsxIov avyxsy^va^oci Iv toT$- xalx tov 
TOTTOV— — . £1 ^t TO «>j^i/3e? ^a^£i iJi,aBeTii t?? >.i^tu<; ukus AKvXtt 
i^lAV)»iv<j-uv\oq uai* ' ft « >cypt£ cuxrov orj, u Si xv^te evu^uffop ^^, 
»vAoy»5/A«vo$ l^p^o/Aij'o? Ev ovo/xali xvfla, 

*® Id. ibid. p. 671. b. t^ bI (abv (/.tj xJ ve^) aT^TiVV Trt^Tiuv ^Kt^affe$ 
9)9 wpi? aXX»jXa ruv a.v\iyfu(puvy ai^e ra 7rav7a ra, xalx J^ul^aXov 

vt? E^olsy Etvat v'ffovouv iviav^a, TF^oa-epp'KpBai, «x sl^9ifji.e»riv v'jro t5 
£«T?§05 »go? Tor w^»c^»o» Tnr * ayxvijctt^ To» Tr^eo-ioi' «rtf *•? crsairh* 

Ff 



( 434 ) 

rrripaiiTd the credit of the vulgar or common edition^ 
as well in the New as in the Old Testament. 

The object at which Lucianus and Hesychius 
aimedj in the different revisals which they published 
of Scripture^ was obviously to remove the objections 
to which the received text was exposed by the cri- 
tical labours of Origen. On this task, however, 
they entered with very different views : the atten- 
tion of Lucianus having been principally directed 
to the Old Testament, while that of Hesychius was 
chiefly employed on the New. 

The terms in which the text of Lucianus is men* 
tioned, as being; identical with the vulgar edition *% 
very clearly evince, that the received text was re- 
published by this learned father, with little altera- 
tion. As he is principally mentioned as a reviser 
of the version of the Old Testament '^ and as Ori- 
gen's critical labours particularly affected that part 
of the sacred canon ^'^ it is more than probable that 
his emendations were confined to it alone *°. At 

" Vid. supr. p. 88. n. ^^ 
'^ Ibid. 
• '^ Orig. ibid, p, 671. c. tJjv [Ay h* tv ror? avliy^u^oif xriS va.Xaiu.f 

lf.iVQi TocVq >.oifrccT<; \y.}d<7iaiv, x.r.t. This observation is immedi- 
ately subjoined to that quoted sujir. n. *^ on the difference of 
the copies of the Gospels. Origen, in continuation, explainss 
the method which he pursued in correcting the Septuagint. 
Conf. supr. p. 432. nn. '^ et '\ 

^ The following description of the vulgar edition of the Sep- 
tuagint is given by St. Jerome ; Prooem. in Lib. xv. Comm. Is. 
Tom. IV. p, .185. h, " Denique omnes Graeciae tractatores 
qui nobis eruditionis suae in Psalmos commentarios reliquerunt : 



( 435 ) 

the early period in which he wrote, the Sepiuagliit 
only lay under the imputation of being corrupted*'; 
and no possible reason can be assigned which could 
induce hint to tamper with the New Testament. 
He must be clearly acquitted of the charge of yield- 
ing undue submission to the authority of Origen, 
as he rejected the corrected text of the Septuagint 
inserted in the Hexapla, and repubhshed the com- 
bos verslculos [Rom. iii. 13 — 18.] veru annotant atque praete- 
reunt: liquido confitentes, in Hebraico non haberi, nee esse ifi 
LXX interpretlbus, sed i?i editione Vulgata, quae Graece y-tuvh 
dicitur, et in toto orbe diver sa est,*' It appears from this re- 
mark, that Ps. xiv. 4. was interpolated with Rorh. iii. 13-^18. 
in order to verify St. Paul's references in the latter place to 
the Old Testament; his quotations having been not easily found, 
as taken from the following places, Ps. v. 10. cxl. 3. x. 7. Is. 
lix. 7. Conf. Orig. Coram, in Rom. Tom. IV. p. 505. and S. 
Hier. ibid. The following observation, which must be referred 
to Ruffinus, rather than Origen [vid. Ruffin. Prsef. in Epist. ad 
Romm. ap. Orig. Tom; IV. p. 458.] warrants us in believing, 
that Lucianus's corrections extended to removing those mani- 
fest corruptions ; while his undertaking to republish the vulgar 
text, proves that they could have extended to little more. 
Orig. Comm. in Rom. Tom. IV. p. 504. d. " Illud etiam ne- 
cessario ducimus admonendiim, qiiod in nonnullis Latinorum ea 
quae siibsequuntur testimonia in tertio decirao Psalmo conse- 
quenter ex integro posita inveniuntur : in Gravis aiitem poene 
omnibus non amplius in decimo tertio Psalmo quam usque ad 
ilium versiculum, ubi scriptum est ; * Non est qui faciat bonum, 
non est usque ad unum.*' In the terms, " Graecis autem p^sne 
cmnibus," the Greek Vulgate is plainly intimated ; in the phrase 
*' inveniuntur — non amplius, Sfc.'* the correction of that edition 
is as plainly implied. As the Vulgate was the text which Lu- 
cianus revised, we have here a plain example of the manner in 
which he formed his revisal. 
" Vid. supr. n. *°. 

Ff2 



( 436 ) 

mon edition. Setting aside the authority of Origcn, 
there seems to be no conceivable cause by which 
Lucianus could have been swayed in corrupting the 
text. Nor can he be convicted on this head, by the 
testimony of St. Jerome, who declares that his text 
was interpolated. As it appears, on the testimony 
of this antient father, that Lucianus's text prevailed 
at Byzantium in the age when he wrote "% where 
it has demonstrably prevailed to the present day *' ; 
we have only to compare the Byzantine text with the 
Latin version of St. Jerome, in order to discover the 
passages """^^ against which his censure is chiefly di- 
rected. There is thus little difficulty in vindicating 
Lucianus from the charge of corrupting the Scrip- 
tures ; and little more in tracing the errour under 
which St. Jerome laboured to the source from 
whence it arose. A slight inspection of the passages 
in which the Byzantine text differs from the Latin 
Vulgate, will convince any unprejudiced person, 
that they are such as the orthodox must have been 
led, by their principles, to exclude from a place in 
the authorised edition, had they been corrections of 
Lucianus. They include some passages which 
wxre favourite texts employed by the Arians, in 

" Vid. siipr. p. 72. n. K 

*' Vid. supr. pp. 71. 88. sqq. 

** Vid. supr. pp. 151. 160. The principal passages in •which 
the Greek and Latin Vulgate difter, may be seen at a view, on 
turning to the quotations in pp. 374—377. p. 390» n. '*'. and 
on comparing the quotations pp. 380 — 385. with the remarks p. 
396. n. '". In these references the Greek Vulgate is denoted 
by Bi/z, or Vvlg, the Latin Vulgate by It, 3. 



( 437 ) 

sapporting their opinions against the Catholicks *' ; 
it is of course inconceivable, that in the age subse- 
quent to that in which Lucianus pubHshed his edi- 
tion, the Catholicks would have allowed them to 
retain their place in the text, unless they undoubt- 
edly believed them authentick. They include some 
other passages relating to the mystick doctrines of 
revelation, which the prejudices of the age pre- 
vented the orthodox from divulging to those who 
were not regularly initiated in their sacred myste- 
ries *^ If it is conceived, that such passages could 
have been invented by Lucianus, which is a notion 
that is exposed to many obvious objections *7; con- 

*' Such are Mat. xix. 17- Mar. xlii. 32. Luc.xxli. 43, 44-. 
Job. V. 3, 4. Act. XV. 28. supr. p. 372. sqq. besides Mar. xvl. 
9—20. Job. viii. 1—11. 

^ Such are not only Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Job. v. 7. 
Col. ii. 4. supr. pp. 253. 276. but Luc. xi. 13. xxii. 43, 44. Job. 
V. 3, 4. Act. viii. 37. supr. p. 377. sqq. and Mat. vi. 13. Luc. xi. 
% 4, &c. ut supr. p. 380. A more convenient opportunity will 
hereafter occur of speaking at large on this subject. 

*^ The Arians have laid claim to Lucianus, as an advocate of 
their peculiar opinions ; Epiph. Haer. lxix. p. 730. d. But this 
was merely an artifice, similar to that by which they endea- 
voured to prove Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus, of their 
party ; vid. S. Athan. de Sentent. Dionys. Tom. I. p. 243. c. 
The orthodoxy of Lucianus has been fully vindicated by Bp. 
Bull, on the express testimony of the ecclesiastical historians ; 
vid. Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. II. cap.xiii. § 4. p. 144. sqq. It is 
indeed true that Lucianus agreed with the Arians in rejecting 
or omitting the term oixoio-tof, in his confession of faith; and on 
these grounds the hereticks founded their claims to him, as a 
partizan of their notions. But the Creed of Lucianus, which 
they produced in defence of their errours, contains a full vin- 
dication of that martyr, as it proves, that however he rejected th© 



( 438 ) 

siderable difficulties must still attend the suppo- 
sition, that they would be admitted into the cano-r 
nical text of Scripture; particularly in an age, 
when reproach must have been brought on the only 
party whom they could serve, by adversaries who 
were as able as they were willing to expose an 
attempt of that nature. 

The charge urged by St. Jerome against Luci^ 
anus's text is therefore entitled to little attention : 
and additional reasons compel us to set it aside, 
which result from the facility of accounting for the 
errour under which he laboured. In fact, the mis- 
take of St. Jerome must be imputed to that cause 
which has been already pointed out; his having 
judged of Lucianus's text by the standard of Euse- 
bius's edition *^ His objection must of course fall 
to the ground, if it can be shewn that the text of 
Eusebius was defective ; as omitting those passages 
which were retained in Lucianus's edition. For 
St. Jerome having been unconscious of the defici- 

term, he retained the doctrine : vid. S. Athan. de Synod. Ari-? 
min. Tom. II. p. 693. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. x. p. 
87. 1. 36. Conf. Bull. ibid. § 7. p. 145. The fact is, that the 
term was rejected by Lucianus, merely because it had been per- 
verted by the Sabellians, to favour their peculiar doctrines; 
and it had been expressly rejected, in the sense which they 
affixed to it, 60 years previously to the Council of Nice, by thq 
Synod of Antioch : vid. Bull. lb. cap. i. § 9. p. 29. sqq. From 
these considerations we may certainly conclude, that Lucianus 
was not likely to invent any passage, like those quoted in n. **. 
supr- p. 437. for the purpose of supporting the doctrine of one 
substance. 

*« Vid. supr. pp. 151. 160, 



( 439 ) 

ency of one ioxij imagined the integrity of the other 
was redundant. 

Under this view of the subject, the various read- 
ings of the sacred text are ukimately traced to the 
editions of Hesycliius and Eusebius; the one, ac- 
cording to St. Jerome's express declaration, having 
interpolated the inspired writings, the other, accord- 
ing to his implied testimony, having pruned them 
of some imaginary superfluities. To the influence 
of Origen, we must again look for the source of 
these varieties, of a totally opposite character, 
which were thus introduced into the text of Scrip- 
ture. 

Of Hesychius we know nothing more than that 
he was a bishop of Egypt, who perished in the per- 
secution in which Lucianus was martyred '^^. But 
this little seems to identify him as a disciple of Ori- 
gen. In the controversy respecting the Apocalypse 
and Millennium, which had been maintained by 
Dionysius and Nepos, who governed the sees of 
Alexandria and Egypt, about sixty years previously 
to the meeting of the Council of Nice, some curio- 
sity was excited, respecting the allegorical sense of 
Scripture, which Origen had supported, and relative 
to the nature of the body, its organization and en- 
joyments, in that state which is to succeed the resur- 

*^ Walt. Prolegomm. Sect. IX. p. 63. § 25. « Quarts 
[editio Twv O'j fuit Hesychii Episcojn JEgyptii, in eadem per- 
secutione decima martyrio coronati : de quo Euseb. Hist. Lib. 
VIII, cap. xiv. Hie veterem translationem recognovit: quac,^ 
teste Hieronymo, per JE^yptum ei Akxandriam cekbris erat >? 
jiovaiw noj;i cudit/* 



( 440 ) 

rection'*. The peculiar opinions of Origen had 
spread so widely after this period, in Egypt, that 
when a council was convened at Alexandria by 
Theophilus, in which those opinions were con- 
demned as heretical, Dioscorus, bishop of Hermo- 
polis, with the Egyptian monks, were professed 
converts to Origen's notions^'. Under these cir- 
cumstances, the churches of Egypt were gradually 
prepared for the reception of a revised text, accom- 
modated to the principles of Origen*s criticism'*, 

3° Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VIL cap, xxiv. p. 34^9. 1. 27. 

Err) Tarotj a.ira.a-i cr-^a^a^elat \_iyiovvarioq iTrlcrxowo? rut xar* A^e|«v- 
^g«ta>]] uvru k) Tragi iTrafye^^iuii ^vo ffvlyfcu/.^otiu, i ^* vnrd^iais avrUf 
NfiVw? riv tmc^itovoi ru» aar "Alywwlov, 'la^ctUursfov rdq IwjjJytX- 

ta-tff^cKt y^oTtSs/xgyoj. Conf. S. Epiphan. Haer. Lxiv. p. 527. d. 
528, b. c. 

^* The account which Socrates has given of this controversy. 
Hist. Eccl. Lib. VL cap. vii. p. 319. is confused and contra- 
dictory ; it having been obviously his desire to vindicate Ori- 
gen's opinions, of which he was undoubtedly a favourer : Huet. 
Origeniann. Lib. IL cap. iv. sect. ii. § 25. p. 278. b. Origenistas 
vero palam se produnt Socrates Scholasticus et Hefmias Sozo- 
menus in Historiis suis,*' &c. But St. Epiphanius, who was a 
contemporary of Theophilus, and who convened a synod in 
Cyprus, for the purpose of condemning the Origenists, about 
the same time that Theophilus convened one at Alexandria for 
the same purpose, refers the origin of this heresy to the monks 
of Egypt ; S. Epiphan. Haer, Origenian. § iv. p. 527. b. *H ^\ 
$1 a^Ttf ['flgtyEvasJ ?''''5'<* a*jp£<3"tj 'JT^u/lov /X£V Iv t-^ toJv 'AlyfW- 
Ti'wv %cti§^ vTKx.Q^yjACsa.t ru yvv ^\ va^ avrtiiq slop^wTaroK »C; ^0X8<7J 
Tov /xov7j§7j ^/ov avaSep(,£ffS'ai, wap ror? (piat% xala t»5 «§»5/*»aj 

^* Independent of the accommodation of the Egyptian text 



i 441 ) 

We have only to compare the account which 
Origen has given, of the method in which he pro- 

to the principles of Origen's criticism, examples of which will 
be adduced on a proper occasion ; instances occur in which this 
text has palpably suffered by the influence of his peculiar opi- 
nions. An example presents itself in one of the first passao^es 
in which his critical canons could be applied- In the quota- 
tion from Deut. viii. 3. introduced in Mat. ir. 4. the original 
mn» »Q «yin b b )D, is rendered by the Septuagint and St. 
Matthew, a^^* im warn pr.fj.an SKTio^svofxiyu ^i£c ro/^caloj e.-^. 
This deviation from the Hebrew was of course marked in Ori- 
gen's Hexapla ; there was consequently room for a correction 
of the text by Hesychius. Instead however of removing ^y,f^x\ 
which is superfluous, he erased ^»« roVoJo?. How far the literal 
interpreters, inserted in the Hexapla, might have expressed ♦a 
by p/xa]», as this term may be sometimes rendered, (see Deut, 
xvii. 6. xxxiv. 5.) we are now unable to discover ; as a few- 
words merely of Deut. viii. 3. U. 17. now remain out of the 
%vhole of the chapter from whence the verse before us is taken ; 
vid. Montfauc. Hexapl. Orig. Tom. I. p. 180. There can be 
very little reason to doubt, that in suppressing ^^d rV»%?, the 
reviser of the Egyptian text had respect to the fundamental 
tenet of the Origenists. S. Epiphan. ub. supr. p. 527. c, 

X/yE**, Vpu%V fxlv 0T» 'T»o? [AQVoyovyjs o^fr Toi/ UuV^a. « Svvcclat, 
fltXXa are to nvsvf/,a, 7ov 'Y*o» ^vvulaci $£ao-aa-&at, «t£ /ix^» *AfyeXot ri 
TlnviAct, lire ol «»$^<ywot rt?? 'AfysXa^, To this single point the 
difference between the Monks of Egypt and the Bishop of 
Alexandria has been reduced by Socrates ; the former having 
accused the latter of being an Anthropomorphite, or person who 
ascribed a human form to God, because he denied this funda. 
mental tenet of the Origenists ; Socrat. ub. supr. p. S21. 1. 3, 
o yu^ ©eof, [0£o^tAo?] (pnfflv, ko^cc rnv^siav Tpa(piiy, ^ o(pSaXpt«s- 
£X,et ^ vrd, K, X^Tqcif tC, <n6^as^ kuBu )^ ol av^o-Troi. oi ^l ^np) 
Aioo-Ko^ov, *n§i7EV£i axoXb^hvVer, ^"Koca-^nf^ov ^oyf^x tia-ayaa-iv, toq uccc. 
©cor HT& otfJ^aX/w-HJ, «T£ aJra, «ts tiq^ols, srs y/i^a.s 'i'/j^i. <■ ■ 



( 44^ ) 

ceeded to correct the Old Testament, and of the 
fancied corruptions which he conceived had crept 
into the New, with the internal evidence of the 
Egyptian text, in order to discover that Hesychius, 
by whom this edition was published, had merely 
undertaken to realize the plan which had been sug- 
g-ested by Origen for its improvement. In cor- 
recting the Old Testament, Orig'en had compared 
the different copies of the Greek version, and had 
admitted the authority of the versions made by the 
hereticks^'; and, in insinuating the corruptions of 
the New, he corrected the statement of one Evan- 
gelist by tlie accounts of the other, and appealed to 
the testimony of the Gospels compiled by the here- 
ticks ^1 We scarcely discover a peculiarity in the 
Egyptian text, which may not be directly accounted 
for, by conceiving the reviser actuated by the ambi- 
tion of giving that perfection to the text of the New 
Testament, Avhich Origen, following similar princi- 
ples, had given to the text of the Old, 

With respect to the works by which Hesyehius 
was assisted in entering on this undertaking, we 
know that he was possessed of a Harmony and seve- 
ral apocryphal works, which had been used by Ori- 

3 J Vid. supr. p. 432. n. ". p. 434. n. '^ 

3* Via. supr. p. 433. n. \ p. 330. n. *'. The Critical Ca- 
nons by which Hesyehius was guided in revising the Egyptian 
text, lie in a short compass ; being contained in two or three 
pages of Origen's Cpminentary on St. Mat, Tom. III. pp. 670^ 
671, 672, 



( 443 ) 

gen in compiling his Commentaries. Ammonius, 
who preceded Origen in the government of the 
school of Alexandria^ had constructed a work of the 
former kind^ in which he disposed the coincident 
passages of the different Evangelists in parallel 
columns ^^; and it appears, from the writings of 
Clement and Origen, that '' the Gospel of the He- 
brews/- " the Acts of Paul/' and " the Preaching 
of Peter/' were well known to the disciples of that 
schooP^ With respect to the authority which wag 
ascribed to these works, it is certain that Origen did 
not absolutely reject the last^^, though he did not 
receive it as a canonical work. A very slight de^ 
gree of attention bestowed on the Egyptian text, 
as preserved in the Cambridge or Verceli manu^ 
script, must convince any person, that it has suf- 
fered from the influence of these different works. 
As the Gospels of that edition have been corrected 
by each other; the deficiencies of one being fre- 
quently supplied from the fulness of another; it is 
evident the text must have been corrected by some 
reviser, who made good use of a Harmony '^ And 

■ ^' Though the remains of Ammonius*s Harmony, which ar« 
preserved in the translation of Victor Capuanus, are disposed 
in the form of a Diatessaron, it appears from the account of 
Eusebius and St. Jerome, that the original work was arranged 
in the form of a Harmony: vid. Vales, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl, 
Lib. IV. cap. xxix. p. 194. n. ". 

^^ Vid. Orig. de Principp. Praef. Tom. I. p. 49. b. Comment. 
in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 322. c. Clem. Alex. Stromat. Lib. VI. 
p. 759. 1. 24. p. 764. 1. 47. p. 804. 1. 35. &c. 

^' Vid. supr. p. 432. n. '\ 

^' Such precisely is the account which Dr. Mills ^ives of the 



( 444 ) 

several extraordinary passages admitted into the 
Gospels and Acts, one of which we are enabled to 
trace to '' the Preaching of Peter/' very sufficiently 
evince, that the apoci-yphal writings were allowed 
some weight in compiling that edition ''. 

text of the Cambridge MS. ut supr. p. 160. n. *". A similar 
obsen'ation had been made on Hesychius's text by St. Jerome; 
tliat it had been interpolated from a Diatessaron ; Vid. supr, 
p. 100. n. ^*°. p. 155. n. *°*. I understand St. Jerome as mean- 
ing a Diatessaron, by ** unum-e-quatuor," in the subjoined 
words, which are taken from the last cited passage : " Vel dum 
cundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum-e-quatuor 
primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum cseteros quoque existema* 
verit emendandos." The term AiuiBo-crafUf is adopted from 
Musick, and signifies the Harmony of a fourth ; that it is al- 
luded to in this place by St. Jerome, is, I conceive, evident 
from his having adopted a like term in rendering this word in 
the following passage in Eusebius's Epistle to Carpianus; 

l^a.ymxucy to 5<a rssaapuv v^y-h aarcO^i'KovTny tvafyiXtov : ** Ammo- 
iiius quidem Alexandrinus magno studio atque industria unttm 
nobis pro quatuor evangeliis dereliquit." As this Harmony 
was published by Ammonius in Egypt, every facility was thence 
afforded Hesychius to revise the Greek Testament. 

^5 Such are the passages inserted in the Cambridge MS. after 
Mat. iii. 15. xx. 28. and quoted supr. p. 127. n. ^K p. 177. 
n. »5'. the former of which is traced by S. Epiphanius to the 
Hebrew Gospel, supr. p. 332. n. ^\ a work which is referred to 
frequently by Origen. The same passage occurred in " the 
Preaching of Peter," an Apocryphal work, which was of equal 
authority with the Gospel of the Hebrews : vid. Auct. de Bap- 
tism, int. opuscc. adscript. S. Cyprian, p. 30. This writer, who 
quotes from the Itahck version, and is supposed to have lived 
near the times of St. Cyprian, makes tlie following observation 
on this passage, which adds an additional proof to those which 
have been already adduced, that the Greek text of the Cam- 



( 445 ) 

But the Commentaries of Orig-en afforded still 
greater assistance to the editour of the Egyptian 
text ; as in them, he frequently found his dillerent 
authorities combined in a narrow compass, and a 
comment added by Origen, whose sentence on this 
subject was taken as oracular. That these works 
have had some influence on the Egyptian and Pa* 
lestine texts, is a point which appears to me to be 
capable of demonstration. Of the passages, con* 
sisting of quotations from the Old Testament intro- 
duced into the New, in which the Greek Vulgate 
differs from the Egyptian and Palestine editions, 

bridge MS. and the Latin version of the Verceli MS. did not 
exist before the close of the third century, near which time 
they were formed by Hesychius and St. Eusebius ; Id. ib. p. 30- 

— ** Item cum baptizaretur ignem super aquam esse visum* 

Quod in Evangelio nullo est scripticm,^* Were this work extant, 
or *' the Acts of Paul," which are mentioned by Eusebius, 
8upr. p. 206. n. ^-^. I make no doubt that we should find in them 
the following passages, and most of those of the same character 
which occur in the Egyptian text and revised Italick trans- 
lation. Act. xi, ^. lAiv av Het^o? ^»a ixanS x^ova h^sX^as voceu- 
Sijvaj tU 'li^oa-o?iVf/.st,' >t) 'nrfoaCpoviia-uT ra? uhx^hg, «J e7r»r'5f»|«? a^xas 
woXyy ^oyov 7ro»y|W,£yof, ^i» tut yu^u\i ^ioxay.ut avrhq, 05 1^ KOtiv)!lna-sf 
eUnoTq, xj uTTVifynXiv avroTq rr.v %ap»v tS ©eS. of ^i ik 7rif»1ou?j 
«^l^(poi ^uK^Uano rp-poq uvrov. Ibid, xviii. 27. IV ^\ T? 'Z(piau> iTrtor.' 

cvy AvroTq lU t»}» irotlpl^x avruv, a-vyxuiavBvaxyloi ^t avttiy ot 'E^i<ticj 
J'y^a^J,a» Tor? U Kofti>^<o /AaSrilaK, oTruq otTro^e^uvlcti rov uv^^cx. 0$ 

As these extraordinary passages are found in the margin of 
the Philoxenian Version, they certainly existed in the Egyptian 
text : vid. supr. p. 77. n. ^° : they furnish a sufficient specimen 
from which we may form a judgment of similar interpolations 
in the Egyptian edition. 



( 446 ) 

the most remarkable are Matt. xv. 8. xxvii. 35- 
Luc. iii. 5. iv. 18^^°: as in these texts the reading of 
the latter editions is apparently supported by the 
express testimony of Origen's commentary. But a 
comparison of the comment with the documents 
which were before Origen/ Very clearly evinces^ 
that in forming- this idea^ the revisers of the Egyp- 
tian and Palestine texts were deCehed. In Matt. 
XV. 8"^^ an ignorance of the Hebrew led them into 

^ V'id. supr. p. 381. conf. p. 185. li. '^K p. 369. n. "^ 

Tifji.oiy which occurs in the LXX and the Hebrew original, in 
Is. xxix. 13. and in the Greek Syriack and Italick Vulgate, in 
Matt. XV. 8i is omitted in the latter plaee, by the Egyptian and 
Palestine editions. That the genuine reading is preserved in 
the Byzantine text, I have already endeavoured to prove, from 
the internal evidence of the Italick version; vid. supr. p. 185. 
n. '^' : the following circumstances will account for the 
yarious reading of the Egyptian and Palestine. (1.) This 
passage is omitted hy St, Marky in referring to Isaiah, vid. Mar. 
vii. 6 ; and it was a canon of Origen's criticism, by which Hesy- 
chius was guided in revising the text, that the Gospels of the 
different Evangelists might be corrected by each other ; vid. supr* 
p. 433. n. ^^ (2.) It was equally a canon of the same criti- 
cism, that the Evangelists had abridged the quotations of the 
Old Testament, in admitting them into the New ; vid. infr. p* 
4i9. n. ^"^ : the shorter quotation was of course preferredy as 
supposed to contain the genuine reading, (3.) Origen, in re- 
ferring to this canon, had given rise to this emendation, by 
merely quoting part of this verse with kou toc ii^<;, generally 
stating that Matthew had not followed Isaiah verbatim ; Orig. 
Comment, in Matt. Tom. III. p. 492. Tru^iBflo frUov a.ito tS 'Haotia, 
oiii? (zvruT^ ?ve|sc7»v «t«? «p^£»' * xa< etVe Kvfioq, IfyiXa /*«» 5 Piao? «to^ 
tv Tu ^ojAcili xvTuvy yta-i ra, l^riS. xa» <7r(ios1<7roixsy yz ot» hx avTOiS 
XsHeffiv «yr/§a\j/6y 6 Ma7^«7oj to TTgo^r^VtHoy. {5.) By this de- 



( 447 ; 

ah ^rroiir with respect to the meaning- of Origen ,• 
as Origen's testimony, when properly understood, 
not only discovers the source of the various reading 
in the Egyptian edition, but confirms the peculiar 
reading- of the Byzantine. The same observation 
may be likewise extended to Luc. iii. 5^"^, A repe- 

claration, liesychius? was deceived ; for irv the application of this 
remark to the passage before uSf Origen is entirely misrepre- 
sented. This passage agrees verbatim with Isaiah; while it^ 
context, to which Origen certainly alludes, diners from the exact- 
words of the prophet : St. Matthew having there written, lb. 9^ 

itaTJjv St ai^Qviot'i fjLSf aiocttrx-ovleq o^aot7^y.aX1cx■q, iC\a>\^xxta, ocuBfjoirut, 

but Isaiah, lb. 13. niDba C3'a^j« nivo m^ od^']> ^m: the 
former of which is properly rendered in the Authorised Ver- 
;5ion, " but in vain the// do tvorship me teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men," the latter somewhat more freely, 
** and their Jear toward me is taught by the precept of men.** 
(6.) What sets this matter out of dispute, is, that Origen pro- 
ceeds explicitly to cite the contested passage in the very words 
of the vulgar Greek ; Orig. ib. p. 4-93. e. tots u-Trtv I K^pof, 

* ^ow tu ro[Asilt ifyl^eiv toJ' ^aov' tu» 'Iy^«.l&;v, * ru 0£«, xai TOig 
^iiMffi rifjiiiv avrov' (pr,^i, otoT» * h Kupaix avruv* ^»a tt,v tlq tl» 
'lucr^v «7r*r»av, * •ndf'fu er»v utto Kvpi»:' though by prefacing 
these words with tot£ ilirsv h KtJpjo?, he was conceived, by the 
•revisers of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, to allude to Isaiah; 
while it is evident, from the context, hcc ri* tk rov Ucr'ev ontir^av, 
he must have referred to St, Matthew, (7.) As the testimony 
of Origen is thus clearly in favour of the Greek Vulgate, and 
there can be consequently no doubt that it retains the genuine 
reading; we have thus a positive proof ot the corruption of the 
Egyptian and Palestine editions, in one of the most remarkable 
passages in which they differ from the Greek Vulgate. 

*tj ?ra* rd axoKkci tU et'S'sTav, which occurs in Luc. iii. 4, 5. is 
found also in Is. xl. 3, 4: but in the first clause, iv^cias vonnt 
Tus t§//3b5-, is expressed by n^DO nu*', !• e. e:'^6<«v vrQiv-n r-y.^ 



( 448 ) 

tition of the same word in Origen's comment on this 
passage, led to an ambiguity, which a reference to 

TPt^ov, and uvth by iJinV«V tS ©eS yifAuv* in the second- In the 
last clause, however, the Egyptian and Palestine texts read 
X trat ra ay.oXicc s'ls Eu^eias ; directly contrary to the reading 
of the B3'zantine text, y.ctl £ra» rcc c^>;o^^a zis tv^sixVf and the 
prophet Isaiah, iiht'dV iprn n>m. This various reading has 
plainly originated from a misconception of the following pas- 
sage of Origen. Com* in Joan. Tom. I. 127. d. o/Aowa? ^l t3 

Ma^JiW xat « Aaxa; tS, * (puvv) jSowvIo? If T»! ep^/AW* /ae/avdIoH — ' a?c 
yey^aTrlai Iv 010^0 hoyuy *H(7Ci't8 t5 Tr^o^ijTa— lTo»/xao"a1e T»!v oJor 
Kfpa, E^Sita? Treierre ra? T^'/Sar ayra.' '7r^o£^»s;tE £1. WfocrE^jjxj]] oe 
o Aaxa? xa« ra e|>5$ t5?5 wpo^>jTi»a5 — * >e^ a'ra* ra crxo^ta «»f euSnaj 
[1. fySjIa**] — 0|U,oift;5 ru Mapxw a^aypa-vj/a? to, ' tv^tiuq 9ro»£?Tt T«j 
•r^i^a? acTa* g7r/l£//>o/x£»o5 to, ' efrSeta? ffoiem rocq Tpii?a? t5 0£5 
Vili.wVy a>]* ^s Ta, ' xj sra* 'TToivloc crxoXta e»s £y$«»»?' [1. eySelav], 
ywcK Ta, * TravW T'i» ^£|t» eS>jHE, jtA/Ia tS, a*)* Ivtxa [^£iq] * sv^iixv/ 

'nt'jroiYiyJvcti TT^jjSyvltxo* ' s^^sia,'.' This last remark, that St. Luke, 
»' instead of the singular il^uocv, made the plural e^Seia?,** appa- 
rently refers to the former etSaia?, in the phrase ay^slay wattrrf, 
and not iAe ^a^^er trxoAia iU zv^i^au (1.) There is a difference 
m the former phrase between the Prophet and Evangelist ; the 
latter, as Origen observes, *' instead o? the singular (n!?DD 1"Jtt^0 
having made the phrase in the plural (et^siaj Trotsm)." (2.) 
If Origen be not conceived to allude to the former, he makes 
an unaccountable omission, which is wholly irreconcilable with 
the minuteness of his criticism, where he undertakes to point 
out the difference between Isaiah and St. Matthew. (3.) The 
reading of the LXX, which St. Matthew followed, is bU tlBsiuv, 
conformably with the Greek Vulgate ; it is therefore as incon- 
ceivable, that the Evangelist would have deviated from the re- 
ceived version in this place, as that Origen would have omitted 
to mention his deviation from the original text in the former, 
(4? ) The main object of Origen was to illustrate his favourite 
position, that the Evangelists abridged the words of the Pro- 
phets, in quoting their writings; Id. ib. p. 127. e. p^f^o-j/*©* Tt 



( 449 ) 

the Hebrew would have directly cleared up; biit 
the reviser not having possessed even learning suffi- 
cient to collate the Greek with the original,, under- 
took to determine Origeti's meaning by his context ; 
in choosing between the two words which were set 
before him, he unfortunately fixed on the wrong 
one, and has thus left his errour subject to an imme- 
diate detection, on confronting the testimony of the 
Greek version with the Hebrew original. In omit- 
ing Mat. Xxvii. 35. the reviser of the Egyptian edi- 
tion has laid himself equally open to detection ''^'. 

•t vrapatvifTjffuq itpoq a7^oh^^^v wept t2 i'jrile(A,ve<7^M rat *E^«|y£?^»fa5 
T« ffpo^Tixa, His allusion to the former is therefore made 
in the regular order ; as it is immediately made after observing 
that St. Luke " having curtailed UBeiaf wouTts rcis Tp4/3»? tS 
©68 rtyi.uvy sets down the phrase ivithout fratrot." Hence it 
appears, that some officious scribe, equally ignorant of Origan's 
object, and of the true reading of the prophet Isaiah, under* 
stood the concluding remark as meant of the last si; evBsiav, and 
in order to point the observation, consequently corrected this 
phrase, in the context, into ei^ ev^tia;. As Origen's testimony 
is thus virtually on the side of the Greek Vulgate, there can 
be no doubt of the genuine reading ; particularly as it is con- 
firmed by the Hebrew and Septuagint, and by the concurrence 
of all versions, except the revised Italick ; which has no voice 
in the present case, as it has been corrected by the Egyptian 
edition. And it must be observed as a singular confirmation 
of the received reading, that it is supported by the Latiii of the 
Cambridge MS. against the testimony of the Greek, These 
circumstances being all taken into consideration, there can be 
little reason to doubt, that the reading of Origen's text was 
that which exists in the vulgar edition ; and that the misconi. 
ception of Origen's comment produced the reading of the Egyp- 
tian and Palestine editions. 
4J The Commentary of Origen on Matt» xx^i, 35. vi4 supr. 
Gg 



( 450 ) 

The allegation of this passage from the Psalms, by 
St. Matthew, introduced an apparent contradiction 

pr 382. runs as follows; Tom. III. p. 920. e* " Postquam 
autem crucifix erimt eum cliviserunt vestimenta sortem mit- 
tentes : et sedentes servabant eum.' Et sunt usque nunc qui 
ipsum non habentes vestimenta autem verba in scripturis posita 
habent, nee ipsa ad plenum, sed ex parte, nihilominus hoc ipsum 
Propheta dicente mysterium quod nunc est impletum.*' I. It is 
clear that Origen found some mystery in this passage, and that 
his exposition must be understood, according to his usual mode 
of interpretation, in an allegorical sense. His allusion is obvi- 
ously to those who crucified our Lord ; whom he represents 
as having the Scriptures, in the letter or outward part, not in 
the substance, which was Christ : notwithstanding the clearness 
of the prophecy, and the mystery which it shadowed. Accord- 
ing to the expositions of the Allegorists, who considered the 
garments of Christ typical of the unity of the Church, it is clear 
that Origen considered the outer garments, which were rent, 
the Jewish church ; but the inner vesture, which was preserved 
vintorn, the Christian* Such is obviously Origen 's meaning, 
from which it would be difficult to prove, that he did not find 
the disputed passage in his text : or that he meant any thing 
more than that tlie Jews did not find out the mystery, which 
was plainly foretold in Ps. xxii. 19. On the contrary, it ap- 
pears to me to be plainly deducible from his comment, that the 
disputed passage existed in his text. (1.) He alludes to the 
prophecy, as if it was before him, without the smallest refer- 
ence to the Psalmist ; which he could not have done, without 
an expi'ess reference, had it been deduced by him in explanation 
of St. Matthew. (2.) He not only refers to it under a title by 
which it could not be even known to exist in the Psalms, but 
the extraordinary title by which it is quoted in the disputed 
passage : the Psalm being there referred to, not under the title 
'^a,'K^h or 7p<p»?, as we find in St. John ; but under the unusual 
title 7rpo<p59T»3s. Of this most remarkable part of the contested 
passage, there is a full acknowledgment in Origen ; tVa 9rX»3^«S^^ 
^5r» ra 'Tigo'^ri'tH being literally rendered " propheta dicente 



( 451 ) 

between the Evangelist's text and quotation, which 
was first pointed out by Ammonius's Harmony ; the 

quod est irapletum." (3.) As this is a phrase that Origen 
could neither have discovered in the Psalmist or St. John ; we 
have thus an express testimony for part of the contested pas- 
sage in his words, and an imphed testimony for the remainder^ 
in his exposition ; the prophecy being explained by him, while 
he is engaged in expounding Mat. xxvii. 35. II. But the cause 
is equally obvious which induced the reviser of the Egyptian 
text to adopt the shorter reading; (1.) It v»'as not quoted ex- 
pressly by Origen, in his Commentary. (2.) It was a canon 
of Origen*s criticism, that the Evangelists had abridged the 
quotations which they adopted from the Old Testament ; vid, 
supr. p. 449. n. '^\ (3.) When compared with Mar. xv. 24. 
Joh. xix. 23, 24. as set beside each other in Ammonius's Har- 
mony, it introduced an apparent contradiction between St* 
Matthew's text and his quotation; the one representing the 
garments as divided, and distributed by lot, comp. Mar. ibid. ; 
the other representing not the garments, but the vesture, as 
that on which the soldiers cast lots ; comp. Joh. ibid. (4.) This 
apparent contradiction was avoided by the omission of the dis- 
puted passage ; and as it was a canon of Origen's criticism, that 
one Evangelist might be corrected by the other ; St. Matthew 
was thus most easily accommodated to St. Mark and St. Luke, 
by expunging what they had left out. As all these reasons 
must have equally opposed the introduction of the disputed 
passage into St. Matthew, as have recommended its removal 
from the text of that Evangelist ; I trust there can be little 
hesitation in deciding, that there is rather an omission in the 
Egyptian text, than an interpolation in the Byzantine. It 
may not be unnecessary to observe, that the connexion of 
*' diviserunt vestimenta sortem mittentes," with " et sedentes 
servabant eum,'' supr. p» 450. 1. 5. contains no proof that 
the intermediate passage, which is at present in dispute, 
was absent from Origen 's copies ; for similar omissions con- 
stantly occur in Origen*s writings, as the next quotation ad- 
duced from Origen will abundantly testify, vid. infr. n, 4-^-, It 



( 452 ) 

obliteration of the disputed passage removed the coti- 
tradictOt»> though it did not solve the difficulty^ for 
which indeed Origen appears to have found no re- 
medy, as he passes it over in silence. The expe- 
dient which answered the immediate exigency of 
the revisers was consequently adopted ; and the pas- 
sage omitted accordingly. But the partial quota- 
tion of the wards of the disputed passage, and the 
general reference to its sense by Origen, clearly 
prove that it existed in his copy : his testimony of 
course as fully confirms the integrity of the Byzan- 
tine text, as it reveals the source of the corruption 
of the Egyptian. In the abridgment of the pro- 
phecy> cited in Luc. iv. IS''^^ we discover a still 

may be however observed, that the insertion of the latter clause 
in its present place is probably to be attributed to the transla- 
tor ; as it forms the text which Origen has set at the head of 
ike next section, and is perfectly irrelevant in its present situa- 
tion, as not touched on in the Course of the section before us : 
conf. Orig, ut supr. p. 921. c. 

■++ 'loiaaffBui ra? o'y>TSTp»/Af>c£ya? Triv xap^'tar, which is Omitted in 
the Egyptian and Palestine text, is retained in the Byzantine. 
This passage was omitted by Origen, Comment, in Joan. Tom. 
IV. p. 13. d. Comment, in Luc. Tom. III. p. 970. a. b. But 
we cannot conclude from hence, that it was absent from Ori- 
gen's copy. In the former place he omits also avorti^ai tj^- 
fdv<riA.ivtiS i¥ u,^£cn' Tin^v^oLi iyioLVToti Krpia ^ty.rovy Connecting xat 
ry^AoK avajSxtiJ'"* »j; wlt/la? To /3»/3x»ov ; in the latter, the transla- 
tion tnerely of his works agrees with the received version of the 
Latin chiifch in omitting the disputed passage. But, waving 
this consideration^ there was good reason why Origen should 
omit the disputed clause : according to Theodotion's and Sym- 
machus's interpretation, it did not exactly accord with the He- 
brew. On Is. Ixi. 1. aV »')ar:V ifanV, St. Jerome observes 
Comment, in Is. Tom. lY, p. ^04-. a, " Sivejwxfa Symmachwn 



( 453 ) 

«tronger proof of the corruption of the Egyptian 
text, and of the integrity of the Byzantine. While 
the disputed passage is indispensably necessary to 

et Theodotionemf * ad alliganda vulnera peccatorum :" we ac- 
cordingly find, that while the Septuagint render )Oirh ta<rao-Sat, 
Symmachus renders wixv ivi^iiffn. Job v. 18. vid. Montfauc. 
Hexapl. Tom. I. p. 402. As the original will however bear the 
sense assigned it in the Septuagint, the reading of which is 
adopted In St. Luke, the difference existing between the trans- 
lation and the original, independent of other considerations^ 
seem decisive of the true reading. (1.) St. Luke represents 
the whole passage of Isaiah as read by our Lord, and there is 
no doubt that the disputed clause exists in Isaiah ; it is there- 
fore indispensably laecessary to the fidelity of the Evangelist's 
narrative, that it should form a part of his context ; as it is 
tibsurd in the extreme to conceive our Lord omitted this clause, 
which appears so apposite to the occasion, (2.) It must for 
ever baffle the ingenuity of every casuist to account for so ex- 
traordinary a fact, as that the passage which is thus omitted 
should be the only one in the sentence, in which the original 
and the translation are apparently different. (3.) This circum- 
stance, which is so difficult to reconcile witli the notion that 
this passage is an interpolation, is of all others most easily re- 
conciled with that of its being a suppressed text; the difference 
between the original and translation being considered a suffi- 
cient proof that it was spurious. (4.) The same circumstancft 
must be eternally irreconcilable with the notion that this pas- 
sage could have made its way into the sacred text ajier the 
publication of Origen's Hexapla ; the difference between the 
Hebrew and Greek version having been there fully set fortl^ 
and its remedy suggested, in a faithful translation, the suppo- 
sition that this passage could have been foisted into the vulgar 
text contrary to his authority, is too absurd to deserve any 
further consideration. Whether therefore we regard the in- 
fluence of Origen's Hexapla or his Commentaries, we have 
tiere another positive proof of the corruption of the sacred text, 
(fiiUi the authority of his writings. 



( 454 ) 

the fidelity of the Evangelist's narrative; a slight 
verbal difference between it and the original He- 
brew^ which was first revealed in the Hexapla, 
clearly discovers the grounds of offence which occa- 
sioned its suppression in the Egyptian text, and 
points out the authority on which the Vulgar Greek 
w^as corrected. In Mat. v. 4, 5*^ to which we may 

*^ In the Egyptian text, vers. 4, 5. of Mat. v. are inverted; 
vid. supr. p. 63. The source of this various reading clearly 
exists in the follov/ing passage of Origen, Comment, in Matt. 
Tom. III. p. 74-0. Bwoiuv ^g tS To»8Ti? T^otfjL^avu Imr^ffot^ rri rdzfit 

o\ ulcoyo) ru 'rryiv^ocnri, on avTuv erm v ^cca-t>.Eiat ruv epuvuv/ i^ajS" 
fyiypci-Tilcci 70, * jw,axapiot o] TrqocsXs x. t. I. But into this opinion 
Origen was led by the endeavour to find out an artificial con- 
nexion between the beatitudes ; or a regular gradation, in the 
course through which the heirs of glory pass to a state of final 
beatitude ; Id. ibid, t^^s* ya^ tv tbto*? on v^utov (/.h ruv iJi,ot}iot.' 
ci^Q^ivm * « ^uaiMicx, rZv a^avuif'* ^ivrepov 5'e * y.}^yi^ovo[Ayio-8ai t^» y55v** 
av (Oft rov m-uvTx aluvcc tUui Itt uvTri^' * wafax^vjStKTss' yap x^ ha 
TO ' ViTtuvftx-ivai xj ^i^i^Kivui 5'txatocrt;v*j5,' ^ no^EaSsi/TEs' aurijj^ t^ 

• liri TViv ^aai'Kz'ia.v uvoy.aBirctvla.i * ruv e^avuvJ* Puerilities SUCh 

as these can not have much weight in determining the genuine 
reading. In another work of Origen's, we consequently find 
the whole order and progress of grace inverted ; and the beati- 
tudes disposed in the following manner ; Mat. v. 9. 8. 4. 3 : 
vid. Horn., xix. in Jer. Tom. III. p. 269. d. A third attempt 
crives us the reading of the Vulgar Greek ; for Origen, having 
discovered an analogy between our pilgrimage through this vale 
of tears, and the Israelites passing the river Jordan, comes 
somewhat nearer to the sense of his text, and thus gives it in 
its proper order ; Hom. v. in Jes. Nav. Tom. II. p. 407. c. 
" Transeundum nobis est quod sequitur, ut in hoc mundo luge* 
araus. Cito etiam reliqua iranseunda sunt, ut mansueti effici- 
amur, et ut pacifici maneamus, ut per hoc filii Dei vocari 



( 455 ) 
add Mat: xxiii. 14^*. we plainly discover the source 

possimus. Festinandum q\ioque nobis est, ut persecutionum 
tempus virtute patientiae transeamus. Cumque haec singula 
quae ad virtutis gloriara spectant non segniter, nee remisse, sed 
cum omni instantia et celeritate conquisierimus, hoe mihi 
videtur esse cum festinatione transire Jordanem." Nor can it 
be objected, that this inconstancy of Origen is to be ascribed 
t& his translatour, for (1.) The tenour of Origen's reasoning 
absolutely requires that the present order should be preserved. 
(2.) There could be no possible object in changing it, had it 
been different ; as in that case it must have been altered con- 
trary to the testimony, not merely of Origen himself, but of 
the versions which have prevailed in the Latin church, since 
his works have been translated ; vid. supr. p. 63. (3.) The 
Homilies on the book of Joshua were translated by Ruffinus, 
as appears from the Prologue ; Orig. Ibid. p. 396 ; and what* 
ever liberties Ruffinus might have taken with his authour in 
other parts of his works, in translating this book he was con- 
fessedly accurate ; Ruffin. Peror. in Ep. ad Rom. ap, Orig. 

Tom. IV. p. 689. a. " Ilia quse in Jesu Nave scripsimus, 

simpliciter expressimus ut invenimiiSy et non multo cum labors 
transtuliraus.'' As the Vulgar Text is thus confirmed by the 
authority of Origen, and is supported by all versions except 
the second and third edition of the Latin ; the former of which 
was corrected by St. Eusebius from the Egyptian text, and 
has had a direct influence on the latter, as revised by St. Jcf 
rome, there can be as little reason to doubt the corruption of 
the Egyptian text, as that it has proceeded from the authority 
of Origen. 

^ In the Palestine, as well as the Egyptian text, Mat. xxiii. 
14. is wholly omitted. The source of this variation from the 
Vulgar Greek must be sought, not less than the preceding, in 
the writings of Origen. This fanciful exposltour had disco- 
vered a natural connexion between vers. 13. 15; vers. 14?.- was 
consequently dismissed to effect an alliance between them; 
Orig. Comment, in Matt. Tom. IV. p. 839. " Claudentes 
autera regnum ccelorum Scribae et Pharisaji duo ad semel de- 



( 456 ) 
of the various reading of the Egyptian text, in the 

linquunt. Unum quidem, quod * ipsi non ingrediuntur in reg- 
num ccelorum.* Secundum quod * intrantes introire non si- 
nunt.* Hoec duo peccata naturaliter inseparabilia sunt ah invi' 
cent. Qui enim alterum ex iis peecat, ab altero se non potest 
abstinere. Item e contrario," &c. It is little wonderful that 
Origen, having got into a train of thinking of this kind, which 
he pursues for some length, should wholly pass by vers. 14; 
which, though naturally connected wiih its context in our 
Lord's discourse, is wholly irrelevant from Origen's explana- 
tion. It is little wonderful, that having become enamoured of 
his exposition, he should finally believe the disputed verse an 
interpolation ; which M. Griesbach conceived was probably his 
opinion. It is, however, obvious from the various readings of 
this passage, that his opinion respecting it, h^s had some in-? 
fluence on such of the Greek MSS. as generally correspond 
with the readings of Origen ; whatever be their varieties with 
respect to this passage, they are invariable in their correspond- 
ence with his observation. We consequently find, that it is 
retained in some of them, and is omitted in others ; but in the 
former case, it is prefixed to vers. 13 : so as to bring vers. 13. 
and 15. in all instances together 7 vid. Griesb. not. in h. 1. 
While these MSS. of course destroy the testimony of each 
other, such of them as retain the verse, add the strongest con- 
firmation to the reading of the Greek Vulgate. The very devi^ 
ation of the vulgar text from the authority of Origen, conveys a 
Btrong presumptive proof of its integrity ; as it is impossible to 
conceive how this ver?e, if it were an interpolation, could be 
inserted in the only place which was proscribed by that critick ; 
or how it could be generally received, contrary to his autho- 
rity, unless under the conviction that it was genuine. As the 
vulgar text is confirmed by the testimony of all versions, but 
those which are enumerated in the last note, and which have 
no separate voice on the present question, as they have been 
influenced by the Egyptian text ; there can be as httle reasoa 
to doubt of the corruption of this edition, as that it has prQ- 
ceeded from the influence Qf Origen, 



( 457 ) 

comment of Origen : for while an inconstancy in 
the testimony of that early father fully confirms the 
reading of the Byzantine text in the former case, a 
variation in the Greek manuscripts in the latter, 
clearly proves, that they have been altered in accom- 
modation to the comment of Origen. When to 
these considerations, we add that of the general 
conformity of the Egyptian text, to the peculiar 
readings of Origen"*^^, they afford us ample grounds 

*' Of the express testimonies of Origen, which have beei^ 
already cited ; supr. p, 354. n. ^\ the following are the only 
examples not found in the Cambridge MS. ly.aTovTa'jr^a^iovacp 
Mat.xix.29. a ^xsj-arE, Joh. viii. 38, riva?. Ib.xiii. 18. /3«-J/<u. 
Jb. 26. To which we may add the following, mentioned by 
M. Griesbach, [Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxvi. n. **j as a 
proof that the Cambridge MS. has not been interpolated from 
Origen ; Mar. i. 7. kv-^'cc^, lb. vi. 3. o rUrav, lb. ix. 2. h ra 
mfo(7ivxjt(r^cn Kvrov, Luc. ix. 3. xaf7r«f a|i»f. When we consi-i^ 
der the insuperable difficulties with which any scribe of the 
fourth century must have had to contend, in introducing everyi 
peculiar reading of Origen into his copy, these exceptions will 
be so far from weakening the conclusion for which I contend, 
that they may be cited in support of it. But of these few ex- 
ceptions, the last four are not express testimonies ; it is ad* 
mitted also, that Origen was mistaken in Mar. ix. 2. vidU 
Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 346. n. ' : and, unless I am 
deceived, he has been misrepresented in Mar. vi. 3, and in all 
the present examples but Mar. i. 7. Luc. ix. 3. vid. supr. p. 369» 
It is likewise possible, that the interpolatour of the Egyptian 
text might have been of opinion that Origen, in deviating from 
the received text in the above instances, had merely availed 
himself of the licence of a commentatour ; and that he there- 
fore departed from his authority in these instances, while he 
generally followed it in others. I take not the least account 
of the argument deduced from the dissimilarity between Origeh 
^nd the Cambridge MS.: Symbb^ Critt, Tom. I. p. cxxiif. 



( 45S ) 

for concluding^ that this edition has been systema- 
tically corrupted from his writings ^^ So far is this 

In order to form any deduction from the premisses there laid 
down, we must assume it as true, that the criticks or gramma- 
rians of the fourth century were equally minute and patient 
with the Wetsteins and Griesbachs of the eighteenth ; which 
is an assumption that no person will, I hope, require me to 
refute* The following texts, which are found in the short 
compass of ten verses, will however demonstrate the influence 
of Origen on the Cambridge MS. Luc. ix. 20. X^trov re QeS, 
Vulg, XpiTon inhv rS QtS. Cant, Orig. sys^^TJfon. Vulg, lb. 22'» 
ayecrnvca. Caiit, Or, uTTa.^vma'oi.a'^a. Vulg. lb. 23. ci^VYia-aa-^u, 

Cant' Or. Ibid. >^ apa.TU rov s-uv^ov avra xuB' vifj^i^etu 

Vulg. desunt. Cant. Or. lb. 26. o> y«^ lironer^wBri y.i xj ra? 
ijxif^ ^oytff, Vulg. 0? 7«^ siraicr^vBn /*« xj raf , lfj(,ai. Cant. Or, 
lb. 27* ^^yoJ ol i/fji'tv aAjjSw^y slarl riviq rav u&e ir'ny-OTuv, oi a fAi) 
^EptrwTat Sawara taq a,v 'l^uo-i rm jiccaiT^eloiV T« ©£«. Vulg, Kiyca 
"Si vuTt on oKm^as slcri riHi uh s^MTcoVt ol a /^r? ysuaojvrixi 
B-etvATy Si's ^v t^iWfn Tov vlov t« dv^pufTra £py(^6(MBV0v sv rrii ^o^ip 
«^S. Cant. Or, lb. 29. to bI^os tS v^oauira, Vulg. ri l^ioc tS 
9r^o<7iyfftf. CflH^. Or. 

"^^ I shall mention but one additional example; heX^i^v ^»* 
fjiiffn avruv xj wa^^^Hv aTwfj Joh. viii. 59. is omitted in the Egyp- 
tian text, though retained in the Byzantine and Palestine ; vid. 
supr. p. 285. conf. Griesb. n. in h. 1. This varipus reading may 
|>e clearly traced to the extraordinary notion which Origen 
entertained of our Lord's pei*sonal appearance, which he be- 
lieved was varied according to circumstances. This notioiji 
the Origenists found difficult to reconcile with the plain state- 
ment of the Evangelist, that he took advantage of the crowd, 
and escaped their fury merely by passing through the midst of 
them: they corrected the passage accordingly. Orig. contr. 
Cels. Lib. IL cap. Ixiv. Tom. I. p. 435. f. us ^spi T>3^^xaT' a> 
^B^oftevoi n/xEK Ta I)jcra, a fxovov y.ocra. rn» '^v^oi t^ ocKOKiy.fv^/.^/.iyrtv Teti 
woPiXo?? 0£KjT>}Ta, aXKx i^ )t«7a to /xe7a/xo§(pa/xsvov aufxay or* 
t^«Xc7o ^ ots £/3«?w£7o. Conf. Tom. IIL p. 906. e. £ 



( 459 ) 
conformity from evincing the antiquity of the Egyp- 
tian text^ that it deprives it^ when considered sepa-t 
rately^ or merely in conjunction w^ith Origen^ of any 
the least authority in determining the genuine text 
of Scripture. 

Eusebius of Gaesarea, who published the next 
edition of the sacred writings^ undertook the revisal 
of the Greek text with different views^ and under 
different auspices. Commanding the same advan- 
tages which had been possessed by his predecessour, 
he was directed in using them by very different prin- 
ciples. While he was no less biassed in favour of 
Origen^ than Hesychius^ he possessed greater faci- 
lities of consulting his commentaries; a complete 
set of Origen's works having been deposited in the 
library of Caesarea^^. He possessed also^ in the 
edition of Hesychius^, a text in which many of the 
peculiar readings of Origen^ his master and pre- 
ceptor in criticism,, had been adopted. And in the 
Harmony of Ammonius^ and the text of Lucianus, 
he possessed a standard by which the superfluities 
of the Egyptian edition might be discovered with 
ease^ and removed without labour. 

Of these different helps towards revising the sacred 
text^ Eusebius fully availed himself in publishing the 

"*' Thus much may be legitimately collected from the follow- 
ing declaration of Eusebius ; Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxxii, 

p. 296. 1. 19. — rr,v TTEfi* Ta QbTsc a-TtU^yiv t£ Fla/A^/Aa ottocj*? tk yiyovu 
cra^ifwi'TEj, T))5 avvat^^iiavjg ctvru tS re <i2^t7£V«s «; tuv ccT^uv 

*| uv ofu (piXov TTApii-iv il/TiTsU-C(T<X. T6/V D-Piyivtis VOVUV TU elf 



( 460 ) 

Palestine text ; to the use which has been made of 
them we may indeed attribute most of the pecuHa- 
rities discoverable in that edition. Of the Harmony 
c^Ammonius, it is unquestionable he made consi- 
derable use*°, in ascertaining the passages intro- 
duced into the Egyptian edition ; thus much may 
be clearly collected from the testimony of St. Je- 
rome*', who proposes the Eusebian canons as a 
standard by which the interpolations of Hesychius 
might be determined. From the text of Hesychius^, 
it is probable Eusebius derived most of the peculiar 
readings of Origen, which he adopted in his edi- 
tion ^* : having here found them incorporated in the 

^ Euseb. Epist. ad Carpian. Nov. Test, praef. ed. Mill, 

'AuLjjLiJHoq fMv A>^i^aiv^fcVf woX^vjv ui eUoi ^i^ovoviav »ej ave^'nv 

je«»o><s6? ^£«a rlv a§»^/xo» hu,y(^u,^a^x aoi raj vvoTiTetyfAsvaq x. t. I, 

51 Vid. supr. p. 172. n. '*K 

" Such in particular are Mat. xv. 8. xxiii. 14. xxvli. 35. 
I^uc. iii. 5. iv. 1 8. which have been already described ; supr. 
p. 4-4:6, n. *\ sqq. The peculiar readings of the Palestine text 
are easily known by the coincidence of the Vatican MS. and 
Latin Vulgate; and the evidence of these witnesses is con- 
firmed by the testimony of Eusebius's Canons, in the only in- 
stance in which their testimony applies ; Matt, xxiii. 14. As 
this verse is omitted in the Palestine text, it is omitted also in 
the Eusebian Canons: whereas, it must have formed a i>ew 
section, and have been designated by a particujctr number, if 
It had existed in the text of Eusebius ; vid. supr. p. 161. n. "**. 
The same remark does not apply to Mat. v. 4, 5. as has been 
sometimes asserted. The Palestine and Byzantine texts agree 
in preserving these verses in the proper order, while the Latin 
Vulgate follows the text of Eusebius Vercellensis, in inverting 
them ; vid. supr. p. 63. The Greek copies of Eusebius's Cur 



( 461 ) 
sacred text, while the testimony of Origen bec^rft6 
sufRcient authority for him to retain them as ge- 
nuine. But the edition published in Palestine by 
the elder Eusebius^ had its peculiar readings. Tlie 
most important of these have been already speci- 
fied ; and some account has been given of the causes 
which occasioned their suppression in the Palestine 
edition 5^ Of these passages, in which the Vulgar 
Greek and Corrected Edition differ, not a few are 
found in the text of Eusebius. A critical examina- 
tion into the source of these various readings of the 
Palestine edition, will^ I trust, end in the further 
confirmation of the same conclusion which it has 
been hitherto my object to establish. 

The most remarkable of those passages in which 
the Palestine and Byzantine texts differ, are Mat. 
xix. 17. Luc. xi. 2. 4. 13 ^^ It will not appear ex- 
traordinary, that the former edition should agree in 
these passages with the peculiar readings of Ori- 
gen ; when it is remembered, that it was revised by 
Eusebius, the admirer and apologist of the father of 
«acred criticism. But it is particularly deserving 
of remark, that the Palestine text, in coinciding in 
these passages with Origen, also corresponds with 

Bons agree with the former texts, while the Latin copies have 
been accommodated to the latter, 

5' Vid. supr. p. 35. sqq. 

** Of these texts, Mat. xix. 17. Luc, xi. 2. 4. IS. have been 
already quoted among the remarkable passages which are sup- 
ported by the authority of the primitive Fathers, or of the 
Italick and Syriack versions, against the testimony of the Egyp- 
tian and Palestine editions ; supr. p. 373. 383, 



( 462 ) 

the peculiar readings of Valentinus and Marcion '^ 
When we take into account the nature and tendency 
of that tract,, in which the extraordinary readings of 
those passages are preserved; that it inculcates hete- 
rodox notions^^^ and quotes other apocryphal texts ^''; 

. ^5 The following account of Marcion*s text is given by St, 
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p. 106. " Et super 
haec, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circuracidens 
• semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evange- 
lium tradiderunt Apostoh*, suasit discipulis suis ; non Evange- 
lium sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis. Similiter et Apos<^ 
toll Pauli Epistolas abscidit, auferens qusecumque manifeste 
dicta sunt de eo Deo qui mundum fecit," &c. The peculiar 
readings of Marcion's Gospel and Apostolicum are preserved 
by Tertullian and St. Epiphanius ; vid. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. 
IV. cap. i. p. 403. S. Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 310. c. d. 

^^ The most exceptionable of Origen's notions, respecting 
tlie inferiority of the Son to the Father, and the impropriety of 
addressing our prayers to Christ, unless as our Mediatour with 
the Father, are inculcated in this tract in the following terms j 
Orig. de Orat. Tom. L p. 222. b. 'Ea» ^l uyMa^iv or^ irore Wk 
'^(0<rsvp(vj, f^'/jTrore e^sv) tuv yeniTuv 'rrpoa-iVKTsoi lr)vy tt^s auft) Tea 
X^JS'W, uX^u [xovcj 7u Qecj ruv qT^uv t^ IlaTp*, a t^ uviog o EwT^jp ^/-tw» 

« Tm T8 YIuJ^os K* T. I. Conf. Huet. Origeniann, Lib. XL 
quaest. ii. ^ 1. sqq. 

^' One of the first quotations in Origen's tract on Prayer, is 
the following, Orig. ibid. § 2. p. 197. f. ul-viXn tu fAiya'Kuy «J 7a> 
fUKfoc y/L«r» Trpors^ria-sruk* xj ainTre toc tTrypavix k^ ru imyna, vyJv 
TTporE^jjcTfTai- vid. supr. p. 330. n. 44. This text is joined, in the 
same sentence, with Matt. v. 44. ix. 38. &c. ; is again repeated 
lb. p. 219. d; and is quoted as the language of the Gospel, 
lb. p. 224. c. Nay more, of the passages which are now be- 



( 463 ) 

there will not be much reason to doubt, that the 
alteration of the text in those places must be ulti- 
mately referred to those hereticks, whom Origen^ 
in his riper judgment, has accused of corrupting the 
text'l 

The peculiar doctrines of the Marcionites are 
summed up in a narrow compass, by St. Irenaeus 
and St. Epiphanius. They agreed with the fol- 
lowers of Cerdo in acknowledging two princi- 
ples ^9 ; one of these they called the good God, con- 
ceiving him to have his residence above the hea- 
vens; and the other they termed the just God, 
considering him the authour of the works of the 
Creation. The former they considered inscrutable, 
and wholly unknown, until the advent of Christy 
who first revealed him to the world ; the latter thej 
supposed the God, who had revealed himself to the 
Jews, who had delivered the Law by Moses, and 
had spoken by the Prophets ^°. Between these per- 

fore us, Luc. xi. 2. 4. xviil. 19. are quoted in this tract as they 
were read in Marcion's Gospel : as will be made apparent in 
the sequel. See also p. 794. f. 

53 Vid. supr. p. 368. n. "\ p. 431. n. ^°. 

5' S. Iren. adv. Hasr. Lib. I. cap. xxvli. p. 106, 'Mx^t 

[]Kspd*«v3 70V VTTO tS vcixa )^ "TTpCpviTurt- asKrifvyf/Jvou Qioi/f (av tlvxi 
TlaTBpcc ra Kvpiei h^Jiuv Itcrn XptfS. tov ^\v yaq yvupitzfSui, rov ^« 
afvuroc slvcci' xj roy fA.lv ^iV.ajov, rov ^e afaSoy i/Trap^eiv, ^tcch^»fjL£ifO^ 
Si avrov Ma^yAuv o UofTiy.o^, riv^rjui to ^i^ota-KCi?\£ioy x. r. e, Conf* 

S. Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 304. a. 

*° S. Iren. ibid. p. 106. ** Jesum autem [Marcion docuit] 
ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi Fabricatcrem Deum, • veni- 
entem in Judaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati — in hominis forma 
manifestatum his qui in Judaea eraut, dissolventem Prophetas et 



( 464 ) 

sonages they conceived that there was some oppd^ 
sition of will and nature ; the one presiding over the 
immaterial spiritual world ; the other over the ma* 
terial visible creation. Christy as the Son and legate 
of the good God, came to abolish the power and 
dominion of the Creatour*^'. He was not however 
made in the fleshy but appeared merely in the like* 
ness of man^* ; the object of his appearance on earth 
Laving been to abolish the Law and the Prophets ; 
to save the souls, not the bodies of men ; for the 
Marcionites agreed with the Nicolaitans and other 
Gnosticks in denying the resurrection ^^ In order 
to justify these notions^ the founder of the sect had 
framed antitheses between the Law and the Gospel, 
in which he endeavoured to show, that the one was 
contrary to the other ^'^. 

These opinions, which had been broached by 
Marcion, near the times of Hyginus, bishop of 

Legem et omnia opera ejus Dei, qui mundum fecit, quem et 
eosmocratorem dicit." 

<^' S. Epiphan. ibid. p. 305. a. Xp»ror Si \iyn a»«S£» »%% t3 

7oitiTk)v. Conf. S. Iren. ibid. § 2. p. 106 

** Vid. S. Epiphan. ibid. p. 322. b. conf. 339. c. 340. b. 

*^ S. Epiphan. ibid, p* 305. c. «>«r<*c^«» St, uq tlvov, wto? Xiy** 
ev. ffV[ji.a,ru9 ciTsXoi. "^v^uv, xxi ffunfi^'tut ralruis ifi^iTatf «^* roT^ 
ffufAuau Conf. supr. nn. ^° et ^^ 

*♦ Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. I. cap. xix. p. 359. ** Separatio 
Legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis., 
— Nam hae sunt Antitheseis Marcionis, idest centrariae opposi- 
tiones quae conantur discordiam Evangelii cum Lege commit* 
tere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque Instruraenti diver- 
Bitatem quoque argumententur Deocum." 



( m ) 

Roine*^^ until those of Pope Damasus; had 
maintained their ground against the opposition of 
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulliaii, Rhodon, Ori- 
gen, andEpiphanius^%- and had produced the dif- 
ferent sects of Lucianists^ Tatianists^ and Apel- 
leians*^ The Valentinians were a kindred sect 
Which sprang from that common source of heresy, 
the school of Simon Magus ^%- agieeing in thei? 
fundamental tenets with the Marcionites, though 
they differed essentially from them in their notions 
of celibacy, which they held in no high estima- 
tion ^9. Of the important light in which they were 

^ 1§. %iphan. Haer. xtiu p, 302. d* ii'Tro^t^puay.Bi [Map^^v] 

yt,tr» to 7i7^evTyi(7ui 'TyTvov tov liriffKO'Kov PufjLviq, Conf. S. Iren. 

adv. Mser. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. pp. 105, 106. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 
Lib. IV. capp. X. xi. p. 154. 

^ Conf* Euseb* Hi^t. Eccl. Lib. IV, cap. xi. p. 157. 1. 5. 
Just. Mart. Apol. maj. p. 70. a. 92. a. Euseb. ibid. p. 155. 
1. 12. S. Iren. Lib* I. cap. xxvii. p. 106. Tert. adv. Marc. 
p. 403. sqq. Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xiii. p. 225. 1. 12. Famph. 
Apol. pro Orig. cap. i. p. 20. d. sqq. Orig. de Principp. Lib. 
IT. capp. iv. v. Tom. I. p. 84. sqq. S. Epiphan. Haer. xm. 
p. 302. sqq. 

" Vid. infr. u. ^\ Conf. S. Iren. ut supr. pfp. 106, 107* 
S. Epiphan* Haer* xtiii. p. 378* b. Hajr. XijV. p. 380. c. 
Haer. xlvi. 391. d. 

*» Vid. supr. p. 267. n. *". 

'» S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. I. cap. vi. p. 30. o* ^) xj [ oYaAEr- 

xcti ci fi,\v avruv Xu^qot toLS ^i^ecffTCOfxevoi^ vv* avrcur ^i^txx'nf 
ravrrtv yvvouKocs Jta(p9"cj§8(7iy, x. t. I. It must be however ob- 
served, that this difference between the Valentinians and Mar* 
cionites was founded on a distinction of the former, who mcrel/ 

Hh 



( 466 ) 

held^ we may form some idea from the Rule of 
Faithj and the description of heresy, which are given 
by Origen ; both of which are framed expressly 
with a view to the Valentinian and Marcionite no- 
tions 7''. " 

One great object of that indefatigable writer was 
to oppose the growth of these heresies, and we 
clearly discover the source of that unfortunate bias 
which his theological opinions took, in the influence 

conceived their elect or spiritual persons as privileged to in- 
dulge in these shameless excesses : conf. S. Iren. ibid. Orig. 
Comment, in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 235. a. b. S. Epiphan. Haer. 
XXXI. p. 189. c. Merely animal persons, of which order they 
considered all those who were not initiated in their mysteries, 
were required to perform good works as necessary to salvation ; 
among which they numbered continence; S. Iren. ibid. p. 31. 
i/xaj Ka^sf •<l>uy^i)t»s ovopta^bffi, )^ ix xocr/xa mat TiEyscrj, >^ avay- 
xa/av TifMV rrjv sfH^drsixv xj etfac^v 7rf»|tf x. t. I. Conf. ibid. p. 
29. S. Epiphan. ib. p. 189. a. 

'" Vid. Pamph. Apol. pro Orig. cap. i. p. 20» sqq. Orig. 
Comment, in Epist. ad Tit. Tom. IV. p. 695. d. *' Quid vero 
sit haereticus homo, pro viribus nostris, secundum quod sentire 
possumus, describamus. Qmnis qui se Christo credere confi- 
tetur, et tamen aliufti Deum Legis et Prophetarunif alium Evan' 
geliorum Deum dicit et Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi 
non eiim dicit esse qui a Lege et Prophetis prccdicatuvy sed alium 
nescio quern ignotum omnibus atque omnibus inauditum, hujus- 
modi homines hccreticos designam^is, quamlibet variis ac diversis 
et fabulosis concinnent ista figmentis, sicut sectatores Marcio- 
nis et Valentini, et Basilidis, et hi qui Tethianos appellant. 
Sed et Apelles licet non omnibus modis Dei esse deneget Le- 
gem vel Prophetas^ tamen et ipse hcereticus designatur^ quoniam 
Dominum hunc qui mundum edidit, ad gloriam alterius ingeniti 
et boni Dei eura construxisse pronunciat/* &c. Conf. supr. p, 
463. n. ^. 



( 467 ) 

which this controversy had upon his mind. As the 
hereticks had depressed the Creatour, representing 
him as inferiour to Christ, he was driven into the 
opposite extreme, and in asserting the transcendant 
glory of God, too incautiously depreciated the Son's 
co-equality with the Father 7*. Though he very 
successfully combated the fundamental errours of 
his opponents 7*; their reasonings, particularly when 
seconded by the speculations of Plato 7^, seem to 

' We consequently find that these subjects are generally 
combined in the comments of Origen ; in touching on the Com- 
ment, in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 139. b. oUrcc^ yuq [5 'H^axX/^v] 

Tov A»j/Xi8gy9V T8 KOff/xa sK(xr%))<x, ovId r« X^ifS, o-rre^ sr* 

vunuv uat^iTOctiiy* o yu^ iri^A.^aq avrov IlaTvip, o tup ^uvruv Geo?, 

•Ti -TTivolyixsy avTUf sros ^ /xovor oyaS-or, ^ t^si^uv tS ^g/:x(p- 
^iv%f, Conf. infn n. '*. 

^* One of the most pernicious opinions of the Valentinians 
respected the doctrine of one substance ; by which they consi- 
dered their elect or spiritual persons, as participating the divine 
nature, incapable of contracting pollution from sin. Conf. S. 
Iren. ibid. p. 29. The blasphemous tendency of this doctrine 
is set in the strongest light by Origen, by contrasting it with 
the conduct of Christ, who, though infinitely exalted above all 
created beings, asserted his inferiority to the Father; Orig. 
IDla. p. Zoo, a. £( &i ISi^ciTQ TO 'no^ysvcrui ri irvtv^iuTiiOi (pvtrK;, optofei- 
Cios Hda. Tip aysvviQTW a.voa^ct t^ u^tx xj uai^^ otKohti^u ta T^yu 
ru xar avrni irtfl ©eS^ «Je (pa.vrutTiu^vtva,i umv^viov lr» a^X^AoK. 
w«»Sofc£»ot Tu ZwTrlpi y^iyoni' * o IlaT^p o ite/a-^"*? /*« y-it^uv [ji-^ £r»>* 
Kstt Oka. tSto ftJj inhovn fAJj^e r^f * ocya^oc,'* ir^oa-r^yofiav tt.v xv^iut 

^m^spovri eivTt,¥ iv^xpiruq ru UuTfl ^tr imTifji.ri<T(u(i w^o< to» /3«Ao- 
/AEKO* vvef^o^aQnp Tof tio* x. t. I. 

'^ Huet. Origeniann. Lib. II. cap. i. ^ 4. p. 1 05. " Unt^n 
autem prae reliquis [Origenes] Platonem admiratus est ; sia ut 

Hh2 



( 468 ) 

have had SO far an influence upon hig sentiments 
as to induce him to embrace some very extraordi- 
nary notions relative to the constitution of CferieV* 
body'^ and that of the human frame, after the re* 
surrectiott ^^ Some of these notions he adopted from 
Tatian ^^ by whose peculiar opinions he confesses 
himself to have been once influenced ^^ ; and from 
whom he obviously imbibed that extraordinary at*- 
tachment to a state of celibacy, which he professed 
in numberless places "^. 

As the founders of those different sects had tam- 
pered w ith the text of Scripture ^, and the Mar- 

Christians dogmata ad Platonicte doctrince teges^ non ipsam Pld' 

tonis doctiinam ad Christi effata accommodaret,** Conf, cap, ii. 

quaest. ix. ? 9. p. 213. 
7* Vid. supr. p. 458. n. -^^ 

75 Vid. Huet. Origeniann, Lib. II. cap. ii. quaest. ix. p. 209^, 
^^ S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 167. aJohra? rtna; 

aopaTS?, l^/ioiuq foX<; ftTri 0TaA£»T»w, [[TaTia*^?] /cty^oXoyfltfU?, rS^ 

vUti^ ctv»yo^iv<rcci, Conf. S. Epiphan. Haer. xlvi. § ii. p. 391 • 
d. sqq. 

" Orig. de Orat. } 24. Tom. L p. 238. c. avocTxcclu^ U /^a» 

viTTxr-n^ivB;, x«» va.^cth^uiJi,itii(; rrjv offt^n ^i^a.ffy.a'Kmv air's, uiv ^ 

78 Vid. Orig. Comment, in Mat. Tom. III. p. 649. sqq. 
Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. viii. p. 264. 1. 20. 

^5' The testimony of Origen has been already produced 
against the followers of Marcion, Lucianus, and Valentinus^, 
vid. siipr. p. 431. n. *^ A like charge has been urged against 
Tatian, who appears from the following account to have pub- 
lished an Apostolicam, as well as a Gospel or Diatessaron ! 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxix. p. 193. 1. 20.— 5 Tan. 



( *^9 ) 

cionite heresy had extendecl itself through the Egyp- 
tian, Palestine, and Italick dioceses^', it cannot bq 
deemed extraordinary that the particular texts which 
prevailed in those regions should have insensibly 
undergone some changes, from the influence of the 
editions revised by the hereticks. In some instances 
the genuine text had been wholly superseded by the 
spurious ^''-itions. In one diocese of the Oriental 
Church, the Diatessaron of Tatian had been gene- 
rally received to the exclusion of the vulgar edi- 
tion^'. As it had been customary with the dispu:- 
tants, who were engaged in defending the orthodo}^ 
and the heretical side of the question, to reason 
from the concessions, and to quote from the Scrip- 
tures acknowledged by their adversaries**, the dis- 
tinctions between the pure text and the corrupted 

TO Ata rtvo-dfav t5to vrfoa-mofxeiaty, t nut wapa 7»o"*» tlcrsrt vv» ^/geraj. 

8° ^. Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 302. a. i Tt. at'fccrij £tS vfoeifyiyi.iyn 
MacpyAuvcx;'] in x^ vuv Iv rji PufjLrt, y.ecl h rn^ *\raXigty Kj ^Alyv'Kiu 
Ts jc £V naXaif/vr}, tv 'Apa^wt rt nxi U t>5 £t/^wt, *v Ki/Wfw re xa» 

St. Epiphanius declares, that he had some conferences with 
those liereticks ; conf. ib. p. 343. 

»' Theod. Haer. Fab. xx. Op. Tom. IV. p. 208. c. Par. 1642. 

iZ^o^i ^\ 7(.xyu ff^gta? 5^ ^»axocr»a? /Si/S^as Totctvra?, {rot. t5 Tartava ci» 
'Tiarffa.^uv iva^yif>\ia.~\ h ruTq ^tc^ i^tAV sxnXistriaK T£TtjM.>i/*Efa»?, x^ Trao-ac 
e-'jiccyayuv a%iBifJi.n»s *^ "T* '^'^^ nrior^uv Eta/yt^jrw* a,)irtiffr,yayof 
'EvafyiMac, 

«* This was confessedly the practice with the orthodox ; vid. 
supr. p. 331. n. **. The same conclusion may be formed with 
respect to the heterodox. Conf. Orig. de Principp. Lib. II. 
cap. V. 5 4. Tom. I. p. 68. d. Tert. adv. M»r. lab, I, CJip. 
ii. p. 351. 



( 470 ) 

rcvisal, were at length wholly confounded in their 
writings. In a country where there was little sta- 
bility of religious opinion'*^ and where great liber- 
ties had been taken with the sacred text^*^ little 
confidence could be reposed in any edition. The 
works of approved writers furnished the only stand- 
ard by which they could be tried ; but they now 
afiforded but a fallacious criterion^ as containing quo- 
tations which were drawn from various equivocal 
sources ^^ A difference between these quotations 
and the sacred text become a sufficient evidence of 
the corruption of the latter ; and the next object 
was to amend the text by accommodating it to the 
quotation. 

On the most cursory view of those passages in 
which the Egyptian and Palestine texts differ from 
the Greek Vulgate^ it must be evident that the Mar- 
cionite and Valentinian controversies must have b^d 
considerable influence on the former editions. Hav- 
ing already laid those passages before the reader^, 

83 Vid. supr. pp. 371, 372. et n. "». p. 344. et n. ^'. conf; 

supr. n. '°. 

^* A distinction is thus made respecting the true and genuine 
copies by St. Epiphanius ; Haer. xlji. p. 373. d. wavra ^l ra. 

In reasoning against Apelles, who was accused of corrupting 
the Scriptures, vid. supr. p. 330. n. 45. St. Epiphanius expressly 
appeals to St. Mark's Gospel, as containing vers. 19. of cap. 
xvi. which was omitted in Eusebius's edition, vid, supr. p. 35* 
n. ^^. Id. Haer. XLiy. p. 386. C, atu ^l avro to »yto9 cvyLO, <rv* 
rn 0£OT7}T» oXo? 0eos — * xaSt^o/xtKo^ iv ^t|ta tS nar^o?.* ws ejdSi 
?C TO T8 Maox« Y.vxfyi'kioVf y.al tuv oiXKav Et«/yiX»r&?»'. 

85 Vid. supr. p. 330. n. *n p. 367. n. '»-. 

«"* Vid. supr. p. 372. sqq. p. 380. sqq. 



( 471 ) 

I shall now proceed to point out the particular 
njanner in which the peculiar readings of the fore- 
mentioned texts have apparently originated. 

At the head of those passages stands Mat. xix. 17. 
with which we may join Luc. xviii. 19 ^^7. which 

•' In the Vulgar Greek, we read Mat. xix. 17. t» ^i a»V«w 
•yoSov e^e)q afaSoj, tl fjuri iT? o 0foj. But this text was little 
suited to the Valentinians, who admitted not only angels but 
men into their notion of God, as being of one substance with 
the Father ; vid. supr. p. 467. n. ^*. The term Qioj was of 
course expunged as limiting the attribute of goodness to the 
Supreme God. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. II. p. 409. I. 
nWcc xat 'OfaXtvrTvoi, 9rpoi Ti»as i7i'ts-i><Xuv avTuTq Xtlecrj y^ot^n irsft 
ru¥ ir^oa-ci(ir*>iJt.»rur 'sis 2>e ES"iv dya^os' x. t. «. We have here 
evidently the jsource of the reading of the Egyptian and Pa- 
lestine- texts ; T» /xs s^cJJacs 9rE§t t» ««)/*95, eTr &s-iv o dfct^oSf 
vid. supr. p. 372. The Marcionites, on the other hand, find- 
ing the term ©eo? too indefinite, as applying to the Creatour as 
well as the Father of Christ ; vid. supr. p. 468. n. '*. limited 
the term to the latter, by the addition of o llcnr,^; S. Epiphan. 

Haer. XLII. p. 339. d. — * o ^l /x^ /*« x/y^ afa^ov' tl; Ij-tv aya^oi 

©£05.* fr^oa-iBiro UtTvof [Moifxiwv j * 6 Tlalrtq,^ Both readings 
are found in Origen; the former in Comment, in Mat. Tom. 

III. p. 664. C. » vo/Aif/ov Zv fjicix^tj-^xh TO* * TToisjo-sv aya$o>' Wfpj 
TO* ' Tt fA« sqiJl^s TTEgi «yaS« ; £is es"*v 6 ayaS'of/ >*i>.iyy,itQy w^oc 
fun Vii^OfAtyov >cj slTTonc* * h^okcrna'Ki t» ayaSoy 7ro»^(r6» ; the latter 

in Comment, in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 41. d. — ^rfi? rlv /woMy£»») 

"KiyoviK * ^t^aaxotAt ayaSt*' [o Hutr,^^ ^'/,a-), * Ti /xs Xeynq ufa^Cr ; 
vJtK ay<»9o5 »» M-M «»?, 010? na7a3§'' Conf. Tom. I. p. 279. a. 
But we cannot hence conclude that Origen found either of 
these readings in his copies, (1.) He quotes, in his text thft 
first part merely of the verse with x^' ra l|5f ; lb. p. 664. a. 

' x^ id« £»? v^(i(ri7\B(ti¥ tlirtv avru ^t^acrxaXs Tt ayaBo* Troiricra/f tta$ 

ayu) t^ur^^i aliiinQii'* )^ ru l^ni. — (2.) The whole of kis comment 
containing the reading of the Palestine text, is not only want^ 
ing in the old Latin translation of Ovigen ; but the reading of 



( 472 ) 

constituted a principal text of the Marcionites ; as 
relating to their fundamental tenet respecting the 

the Byzantine text is set, in place of it, at the head of the lec- 
tion; Ibid. p. 664!. d. <* Interrogavit Jesum unus de turha 
dicens, * Magister bone, quid boni fUciam ut habeam vitam 
seternam ? Qui dicit ei ; Quid me dicis honum : Nemo bonus 
nisi unus X)eus" And an indisputable interpolation of the 
Greek of Origen occurs in the Comment on the part of Scrip- 
ture before us: vid. p. 670. c. et Huet. not. 7* (3.) It is 
merely to ri uya^v Troiricrvy which is found in the Vulgar Greeks 
that Origen refers, in expressly referring to St. Matthew ; Ibid, 

p. 664". C, y^iv ^K M«TS»io{, ui TTE^* ayaStf tfya i^wT^Bwras t£ 
X4^T?pof 6V Tw'—- * Ti aya&ov volviaa} ;' MiyfCL^tv" ^i Mapo?, k) 

{! (4.7) CK 0*0?.' In fact, the reply of our Lord was dictated 
in St. Matthew, by the question t* ayu^ov itQUaUf which is wanti 
ing St. Mark and St, Luke ; but was dictated, in the last-named 
Evangelists, by the epithet MoitrzotXe oiya^i; conf. Mat. xix, 
16. Mar. x. 17. Luc. xviii. 18. thus viewed the disputed passage 
is not ascribed by Origen to St, Matthew, (4.) The first ex^ 
plicit acknowledgment, which he makes of it, is in a subsequent 
place, where it is considered, as if it was stated by an object 
tour ; Id. ibid. p. 666. a. \iyoiro S' av vito nvos ui apx y^vuaKuv 

• 2«T»!p Tiii» T» vrvvBuvQiJi.iv8 i^toj siTTt)/ uvTf nvv^xvoixitu* * rt 

eiyci^Qv Ttoiv^u,'* TO* * Tt /xe k'RzgcJlc/is Tre^I rS ayot^H* As this 
passage is acknowledged by the old Latin version of Origen, 
it fully vindicates the translatour from any suspicion oi accom- 
modating his authour's text to any particular version. The 
whole of tlie ciixumstances of the case compel us to conclude, 
that the disputed passage is a text which Origen merely quotes 
xn the manner in which it had been corrupted by the hereticks. 
(1.) It is his constant practice to quote texts, on similar autho- 
rit)'^; as we Iiave just seen in the case of the Marcionites : conf, p. 
330. n. *^ (2.) He has admitted, that these hereticks and the 
Valentinians corrupted the sacred text ; vid. supr. p. 431. n. *°. 
and this is a passage, which, as relating to their fundamental 
dac^ine respecting the attribute of tlieir Good God, they were 



( 473 ) 

nature of the Deity. An examination Into the pe- 
culiar opinions of those hereticks, leaves us very . 

least likely to leave unaltered ; vid. supr. p. 463. n. ^'^, (S.T 
We consequently find that the Marcionites are positively ac- 
cused of sophisticating this text by St. Epiphanius, vid. supr, 
p. 471. and a similar charge is brought against the Marco- 
sians, who were of the Valentinian school, by S. Irenseus ; 
adv. Haer. Lib. I. cap. xx. p. 92. E>.a ^i ^ rm Iv 'ECccfyixC 

xtifAuuv bU tSto rov ;^ap>tTJjpa [o» Ma^xw^-jot] f^Sa^|J^6^yJ■^y^ 1 

AyaBov Giov w^oXoyuzepai BivoncCy < t' fxf >.Bynq a.y»^ov ; elg Ij-,^ 
iyaScf, Ylcclrip £V rois A^oivo7r' i^a^aj ^$ vvv tk^ *AI^vaf tl^ija-^ai 
hsyaa-i' Here, by the addition of iv to?? apumij in the sense of 
iv roTi ftlu<7iy the hereticks took in the whole of those beingt 
whom they included in their notion of the Divine Nature ; vid. 
S, Iren. ibid. cap. xi. p. 77. sive, S. Epiphan. Hser. xxxiv. p. 
243. d. conf. supr. p. 270. n. *»*, (4.) The passage before us, 
when compared with the vulgar reading, has all the character- 
istick marks of an heretical corruption. The question proposed 
in the Corrected Text, ri /*£ Ifurui ws^l uyaBey or t5 «yaSs, 
and the answer, eh iriv uyaBo^, Jhvours the common notion of 
the hereticks, that Christ came to reveal a good God, who was 
previously unknown ; vid. supr. p. 463. n. ^^, (5.) As far as 
we have any accounts of the hereticks* opinions, it is expressed 
in the very language used by them ; J? W^t ciyoS6<;, which i§ 
substituted for ts^sU uyuBo^ el /^^ al?, being the phrase which 
both Valentinians and Marcosians use, in describing their doc- 
trine ; vid. supr. And it is clear to me, that the phrase which 
it found in Origen, ^voin^rov iyoc^ov,' supr. p. 471. 1. 24. was sub- 
stituted, by the same hands, for rnpwro^ rug ImXa?, which 
occurs in St. Matthew : as the hereticks, who absolved their 
spiritualized followers from the necessity of observing the Law, 
required the practice of good from merely animal persons, such 
as the rich man who addressed our Saviour ; vid. supr. p 465. 
n. % (6.) It introduces an antithesis, or a contradiction betxveen 
the Lata given by Moses, and that revealed by Christ; as the 
person vi^o i$ represented as *< having kept all the ctmimandments'* 



( 474 ) 

little room to doubt that the various reading of the 
texts before us originated with them, and that they 

from his youth is addressed, as if he were ignorant either of 
the nature of good, or of the one good God, whom Christ first 
revealed ; vid. supr. p. 464. n. ^\ Of this distinction, the 
Marcionites were fully sensible ; and in order to point it more 
forcibly, they made another alteration ; S. Epiphan. ib. p. 339. 

d. * hT; ifiv ayx^o^f o 0(o;.' w^oasSiTO l;t£<Vo? [|o Mafniuv'], * • 
JJlaTijp.' 1^ a»Ti t5* * ret; svTo>a$ Oi'Sar,' ^^h^h * Ta; e«ToXafc{ olJa. 
(7.) Origen not only cites it as he does other heretical texts ; 
conf. supr. p. 330. n. ^K but with a direct reference to the here- 
ticks, (who accused God of severity, as the authour of the Law) 
which is perfectly beside the purpose, unless we conceive the 
disputed passage brought this subject before him ; Orig. ibid. 
p. 666. C. ^r.Tfiam; ^l "Jrui aJaSoT^jTo? avte 'rrtiX kJ ra fc»i i>o«;ai»* 
Jiro To/v aera* i^' iatvToTq avy.o^(XV%)ilaJV t©» tS No^» 0eo>, n^ xaJn-. 
7ogMv7^v auiS, »' T. I. In which sentence Origen offers a stiffi* 
cient apology, for appealing to the testimony of the passage 
before us. In fine, as the received reading, which has the 
whole of the internal evidence in its favour, is thus not in the 
least affected by the testimony of Origen ; while it is amply 
supported by the most unimpeachable evidence, vid. supr. p. 
570. n. *" : the whole weight of evidence which is cited against 
5t must fall with the testimony of Origen. The writings of 
this father have unquestionably had considerable influence on 
the Egyptian and Palestine editions ; and by these texts the 
Sahidick and revised Italick, the Coptick and later Syrfack 
have been obviously corrected : none of these witnesses can of 
course have the smallest weight in supporting the contested 
passage, against the single testimony of Justin Martyr; vid. 
supr. p. 372. And let it be observed, that the evidence of thii 
primitive father derives additional weight from the explanatory 
gloss with which he closes his testimony, «5'eK dya^Uy d t^n 
fiovos 0£o?' <jToiri9as 'Koc^icc. This clause being undoubtedly 
added as a corrective to the glosses of the hereticks, whose 
object was to exclude the Creatour from the character of good-* 
jsess, clearly proves that the passage before us ha^ l^een tasu* 



( 475 ) 

acquired that authority in Origen's works, which 
obtained them a place in the Egyptian and Pales- 
tine edition. The same observation nearly may be 
extended to Luc, ii. 38^*. the peculiar reading of 

pered with in Justin's age, and is a sufficient guarantee that 
Justin's testimony has not been accommodated to the Greek 
Vulgate. As in this view of the subject, every variation of the 
passage before us is adequately accounted for, on considering 
the Byzantine text retains the genuine reading; while it seems 
impossible to account for the corruption of the vulgar Greek, 
not to mention that of antient Italick and vulgar Syriack, on 
conceiving the Palestine text preserves the authentick reading: 
I conceive we may as confidently pronounce on the purity of 
the former text as on the corruption of the latter. 

^* In place of the vulgar reading, Luc. ii. 38. ^lua-fip i^ i 
fArirvf ocvr^i the Egyptian and Palestine texts read, 5 warrif) ayw 
kJ y) fAriTnf ; vid. supr. p. 373. The authority for this variou* 
reading is contained in the following observation of Origen, 
Hom. XVII. in Luc. Tom. IIL p. 951. c. ** Lucas — qui raani- 
feste nobis tradidit quoniam virginis filius Jesus est, nee de 
humano conceptus est semine, iete patrem ejus Joseph testatus 
est dicens ; * Erant pat&r Hints et mater admirantes super his 
quae dicebantur de eo.* Quae igitur causa extitit, ut eum qui 
pater non fuit, patrem esse memoraret ? Qui simplici expo- 
sitione contentus est, dicit: Honoravit eum Spiritus Sanctus 
patris vocabulo, qui nutrierat Salvatorem. Qui autem altius 
aliquid inquirit, potest dicere, quia generationis ordo a David 
usque ad Joseph deducitur, et ne videretur frustra Joseph no- 
luinari, qui pater non fuerat Salvatoris, 2/^ generationis ordo 
haberet locum pater appellatus est Domini.^* There are few, 
I trust, who will be of Origen's opinion, that the various read- 
ing of the Palestine text removes any difficulty which may be 
found in the genealogy, or has any other effect, than to create 
a greater difficulty with respect to the immaculate conception. 
The reading of the vulgar Greek has been already vindicated, 
from the internal evidence, and from the unvarying testimony 



( 476 ) 

this text having originated with the Origenists^ who 
endeavoured to strengthen the argument, deduced 

of the old Italick version, to which we may add that of the 
antient Syriack ; vid. supr. p. 169. n. "'. conf. p, 359. n. *°*. 
And Origen, shortly after making the above observation, lets 
us into the secret of the various reading of the Palestine text ; 
plainly intin»ating, that it arose from the Marcionite contro- 
versy ; having been opposed to the errours of those hereticks, 
who rejected the genealogy, because they objected to the in* 
carnation ; vid. S. Iren. ub. supr. p. 462. n. ". Orig. ib. p. 952. d, 
** Virgo mater est, signum est cui contradicitur. MarcionHa 
contradicunt huic signo, et aiH7it pcnitus eum de muliere non 

es^e generaftim. Alii enim dicunt eum venisse de ccelis: alii 

tale quale nos corpus habuisse," &c. As either the reading of 
the Palestine or Byzantine text must be false, there can be 
rew little reason to doubt, that it is the former which has been 
corrupted. That the reading of both editions is of great anti^- 
quity, must be inferred from tlie testimony of Origen, and the 
old Italick translation. And tliis consideration seems decisive 
of the fact, that the vulgar Greek retains the genuine reading. 
The evidence which supports this text is not only more antient 
than that which supports the Palestine ; but at the time when 
the Italick version was formed, as strong reasons opposed the 
introduction of the Byzantine reading as favoured that of the 
Palestine ; the Marcionite controversy, on which this text bore, 
having been then at the summit. While it becomes therefore 
impossible to account for the general corruption of the vulgar 
Greek, Latin, and Syriack texts, that of the Egyptian and Pa- 
lestine, of the Latin Vulgate, the Sahidick and Coptick ver- 
sions, &c. admits of the same explanation as in the last exam- 
ple ; supr. p. 47 1. n. *^ : and as to the testimony of Cyril, it 
mtist follow the fate of the Palestine text, as that of St. Jerome 
and St. Augustine follows the fate of the Latin Vulgate. While 
of course the Greek Vulgate is supported by the testimony of 
the most competent witnesses, that of the Palestine text is sus- 
tained by no adequate evidence. The inference may be now 
left to the reader. 



( 477 ) 
froKi the genealogy in favour of our Lord's incar- 
nation, by deducing the line of descent at least no- 
minally through Joseph. Nor is the case materi- 
ally different witli respect to Luc. xi. 13 ^9, relative 

'9 The Byzantine text reads, Luc. xi. 13. el 5* lusT<; oVJ«ti 
«ya3"« ^ofAGtla o»^o»«i 7&T^ t«xvoj$ vfAuVf jroVw ^iWu)* 9 UxryiP • i| 
i^atvS ^aurn 'Trnvijuz ciyiov rati aWea-iv altov, but the Palestine 
text substitutes vttv^ot dyx^ovy and the Egyptian «ya$ar ^/a*, 
for TrnvfAo. uytov ; vid. supr. p. 373. These various readings must 
be plainly referred to Marcion, who stands at the head of those 
who had corrupted the Scriptures in the age of Origen. Hjb 
reading of this verse is preserved by S. Epiphanius, Haer, 
XLir. pi 313. C, il iif IjAiiq 9ro*>)§o< evT«;, ai^arf ^o^ara elyxBa: 7r6<r»i 
fnahXot riar^p : the final clause being expunged according to 
Marcion's practice, vid. supr. p. 462, n. ". As Origcn pos- 
sessed an early bias to the ojiinions of the Encratites, {]vid. 
supr. p. 468. n. '^ conf. n. '^j the first founder of which 
»ect was Marcion [vid. S. Iren. Lib. L cap. xxviii. p. J07.3 
he has interpreted this text according to their notions ; Orig, 
Comment, in Mat. Tom. IIL p. 650. d. xj to, ' t^ ^e e| vy.uf 

TOJ* irctripa uloi; ulrvcru l^^vt, /x^ uvrl i^^voi o^nt ivt^^ffn mirZ^ 
t^ T« «|t?. ^^cei an TO ayaSrov 5d/x«, Tr,» irxvin'Kr, xaSai^scrj* bv 
iyupKifi J^ tiyvux ©lo?, to7<; i^ o\i^q ^i^^f> >««* ftfxa nrtfeui, 4«sm 
«^*rtXe»9rTft?? iif 'KfO!Tivxa7<i xWbjiv uvrcv. Anothet attempt at ex- 
planation by our critick gives us a little more of the reading 
which exists in the Greek Vulgate ; Orig. de Orat. Tom. I, 
p. 213. c. ItteI • ;tp»!ro? n^rip ro'j tuvrtt a^r'n ^loaa-t roTf ' ro 
mvtVfJiU T?$ vlo^iffix(;* BlXv,(pOffiv otVo t5 UuTpoi* xal ^>^uirtp « HoJi^ 
TO dyccBlv ^ofxcc. vtov e| K^avS roTq aWScrtv ecvTov, The cause of thi.-? 

inconstancy in Origen's reading is fully explained by himself 
in the tract which contains the last extract ; in the course of 
it he signs a recantation of his former opinions, and abandons 
Tatian and the Encratites; vid. supr .p. 468. n. '\ ilis differ- 
fcnt expositions are consequently perfect contrasts to each 
other ; " the good gift" in the one being " perfect purity, in 
edibacy and chastHi/" for which Marcicra, contanded ; but in 



( 478 ) 

to the gift of the Spirit ; Origen having* originally 
adopted this text, as it was understood by the Mar- 
cionites, furnished, by his different explanations of 
it, the various readings of the Egyptian and Pales- 
tine editions. In Luc. xxii. 43^ 449*. yy^ discover 

the other^ " those temporal blessings which God grants as the 
rain frmi hea'oeny* which Marcion abjured, as denying the 
goodness and providence of the Creatour, vid. supr. p. 463. 
n. '^ Thus far a plain account is given of the various read* 
ings of Marcion and Origen. And in the testimony of the 
latter we have as satisfactory an account of the various readings 
of the Egyptian and Palestine texts ; the reviser of the former 
having followed Origen's earlier notion in adopting uyx^ht 
^o(j>,ci, and the reviser of the Palestine having followed his later 
opinion in adopting wsvijict uyuBov* Nor was their respective 
choice the effect of accident. The Egyptian monks naturally 
gave the preference to the reading which favoured their habit 
of life ; and the bishop of Caesarea as naturally gave a prefer- 
ence to that which agreed with Origen's amended opinion. 
Both likewise had their reasons for preferring Origen's reading 
to that of the vulgar Greek ; Eusebius having been addicted to 
the Arian heresy [vid. supr. p. 39. n. ^^.3 and Hesychius to the 
Origenian [vid, supr. p. 439. n. *^] whose opinions were at 
variance with the doctrine inculcated in the received reading : 
vid. S. Hieron. Pam. et Ocean. Ep. lxv. cap. i. Tom. I. p. 229. 
Without insisting on the authority of the antient witnesses 
-which support the reading of the vulgar Greek, and the diffi- 
<:ulty of shewing how they could have been corrupted ; these 
considerations seem fully adequate to vindicate the integrity of 
this edition. 

*° The agony in the garden, described in these verses, it is 
next to certain, was first suppressed in the Gospel of Marcion : 
and was thence omitted in some copies of the Palestine text, 
and on the authority of it, in some copies of the Philoxenian 
and Armenian versions ; vid. Griesb. n. in Luc. xxii. 43. y. 
The following reasons seem adequate to establish the antece- 



( 479 ) 

the influence of the same hereticks' notions ; and 
with this text we may join Col. i. 14''. as relating 

dent assertion. (1.) This passage occurs in St. Luke, which 
of all the Gospels was alone acknowledged by Marcion, and 
which was mutilated of all those passages, by him, which con- 
tradicted his peculiar opinions ; vid. supr. p. 462. n. '^ (2.) 
The disputed passage, as proving our Lord's advent in the flesh, 
was opposed to the peculiar tenet of Marcion, who denied the 
incarnation and passion of our Saviour, conceiving his body 
merely a phantasm; Tert. de Anim, cap. xvii. p. 271. " Sic 
cnim et Marcion phantasma eum maluit credere, totius corporis 
in illo dedignatus veritatem," (3.) St. Epiphanius was well 
acquainted with this passage, rid. supr. p. 93. n. *®^ and he 
expressly opposed Marcion*s opinions, on the testimony of his 
mutilated Gospel; appealing to several passages which were 
infinitely less strong than that before us, as Luc. ix. 22. vid. 
S. Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 327. d. conf. p. 347. b. But he has 
deduced no argument from the passage before us ; we must 
therefore conclude, that it was wanting in Marcion 's copy. 
On the omission of this text in some copies of the orthodox 
T shall have occasion to speak hereafter ; this circumstance 
with which St. Epiphanius was well acquainted, prevented him 
from upbraiding Marcion with the suppression of this passage. 
As all versions retain this text, which is quoted by Justin 
Martyr, Hippolytus, and other antient fathers, but those al- 
ready specified, little more remains to be added respecting it. 
There can be as little reason to doubt the integrity of the 
Vulgar Greek, as that the various reading of the Palestine text 
has proceeded from the corruption of Marcion. 

** The observations made on Luc. xxii. 43, 44. in the last 
note, may be applied to this passage, which asserts our redemp- 
tion " by the blood" of Christ. (1.) The Epistle to the Co- 
lossians was equally corrupted by Marcion with the Gospel 
according to St. Luke; this Epistle having been partly re- 
ceived by him, and that to Philemon alone having escaped the 
defalcation of the heretick; conf. Epiphan. User, xlii. p. 373. 
a. b. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. V. cap. xxi. p. 479. (2.j The 



( 480 ) 

to the same subject : in these examples a degree of 
eoiricidence between the Marcionite and Origenian 

passage before lis is more decidedly opposed to Matcitm'g 
errours, than any which exists iti the text of the vulgar edi- 
tion, and as such was peculiarly obnoxious to him ; Tert, d<? 
Cam. Christ, cap. ii. p. 298. ** His opinor consiliis, tot oti* 
ginalia vistrwrtenta Christi delere Marcion ausus es; ne earo 
ejus probaretur. (S.) St. Epiphanius reasons from Marcion'S 
concessions in this chapter; Ibid. p. 373. b. He was well 
acquainted with the disputed passage as it is expressli/ opposed 
to the Marcionites by St, Irenaeus, adv. Haer. Lib. V. cap. n* 
§ 2. p. 293. with whose works St. Epiphanius was thoroughly 
acquainted, vid, S. Epiphan. Haer. xxxi. p. 173. a. But he 
has deduced no argument from this passage j it must have been 
consequently obliterated in Marcion's Apostolicum. Admit- 
ing that this passage was wanting in Marcion's text, it becomes 
little wonderful that it was omitted in the Egyptian text, and 
on the authority of it, in the Palestine edition. The notions 
of the Origenists relative to the body of Christ, differed but d 
shade from those of the followers of Valentinus and Apelles. 
'J-hey considered our Lord's body a kind of spiritualized sub- 
st^ice, which was capable of different appearances or meta- 
morphoses ; vid. supr. p. 452. n. ^\ conf. inflf. p. 482. n* '*• 
The following testimony of Origen, in which the orthodox no- 
tion of the incarnation is tacitly censured, furnished sufficient 
authority for the adoption of Marcion's reading ; Orig. Hont. 
in La«. Tom. IIL p. 952. d. ** Habuit corpus humanum, et 
hoe signum est cui contradicitur. Alii enim dicunt earn ve- 
nisse de ccelis ; alii tale quale nos corpus habuisse, ut per simili* 
tudinem corporis etiani nostra corporis * redimeret a peccatis, 
et daret nobis spem resurrectionis.' And in explaining 1 Cor. 
vii. 23. he expressly denies that either the body or the soul of 
aur Lord was offered as the price of our redemption ; vid. 
Camm. in Mat. Tom. IIL p. 726. c. In exact conformity with 
the former reference, ** redimeret a peccatis," is the reading 
©f the Egyptian text and revised Italick version, as preserved 
B» the Cambridge, Clermont, and St. Germain MSS. ; which 



( 481 ) 

tenets^ led to the adoption of the various re^ding^ 
of the texts of Egypt and Palestine. The causes 
were of an opposite character, which produced the 
various reading of 1 Joh. iv. 3 9*. Origen's endea- 

differ from the Palestine text in omitting r^v a,(psa-ir, as well as- 
^ia 7^ ai/*«To? uvtS ; vid. supr. p. 376. conf* Griesb. n. in h. I. 
The cause of this difference is, however, easily discovered in 
the peculiar opinions of the different revisers of those editions. 
Hesychius imbibed a deep tincture of Origen's notions; he 
consequently admitted no more of the disputed text, as genuine, 
than the following words; iv u '^x^iJisv triv diroT^vT^ucn ruv ccfjt.cc^' 
Ti^y; agreeably to Origen's representation. The Arian ten- 
dency of Eusebius did not lead him quite so far as Hesychius ; 
he consequently adopted a little more of the genuine reading, 

and wrote, iv a t^ofa* rv)v aTroXvTpucriv, TYiv a^sciy ruv «(jLocpiiuv i 

admitting the remission of sin, though he suppressed the meri- 
torious price of it. But St. Irenseus, who preceded both, and 
whose opinions had no such tendency, has expressly quoted 
the disputed verse as it occurs in the Greek Vulgate, laying 
peculiar emphasis on ^^ci re oti^%%<; olIt^. vid. supr. pp. 376* 
378. With the testimony of the Egyptian text, that of the 
Sahidick version falls of course ; as the testimony of the Sy- 
riack, Coptick, Ethiopick, revised Arabick and Latin Vulgate, 
falls with the Palestine : and the testimony of the Greek and 
Latin fathers, who have cited the disputed text, must follow 
the fate of the last mentioned texts, as they confessedly re- 
ceived the revised editions of Eusebius and St. Jerome. Under 
this view of the subject, every various reading of the disputed 
passage is satisfactorily accounted for. As the reading of the 
Greek Vulgate is supported by the testimony of antient ancl 
separate witnesses, in the old Italick and Arabick versions, we 
must conclude, that they retain the genuine text : until at least 
some plausible account be given of the manner in which they 
could have been corrupted. 

^* The various readings of this passage have been already 
pointed out supr. p. 377. p. 303. n. ^": and have obviously ori- 

I i 



( 482 > 

voiir to avoid the peculiar errours of the Vdlenti- 
nians respecting the person of Christy having pro- 

ginated, not less than the preceding, from the influence of the 
Marcionite and Valentinian heresies. The Valentinians be- 
lieved in the existence of two Christs, who were mystically 
miited; S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. xvi. p. 204. " Sal- 
vatorem quidem qui desuper descendisset, quem et ipsum recep- 
taculum Chrkti, et universae Plenitudinis esse [ Valentinian i] 
dicunt, linguae quidem iinum Christum Jesum coTifitentes, divisi 
vero sententia : etenim haec est ipsorum regula, quemadmodum 
praediximus, ut alterum quidem Christum Jidsse dicant, qui ab 
Unigenito ad correctionem Plenitudinis praemissus est; alterum 
vero Salvatorem esse in glorificationem Patris missum.'* Mar- 
cion agreed with Valentinus in this notion, which was adopted 
from the Gnosticks ; Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. I. cap. xv. p. 357. 
«' Atque ita tres mihi deos numera Marcionis«- — . His quum 
accedunt et sui Christi, alter qui apparuit sub Tiberio ; alter 
qui a Creatore promittitur," &c. conf. supr. p. 266. There 
wasTiothing in these notions which accorded with the doctrine 
of the Origenists; on the contrary, the founder of this sect 
strenuously opposed those opinions. In the following passage 
we consequently discover the true source of the various read- 
ings of the Egyptian and Palestine editions ; Orig. Comm. in 
Mat. Tom. III. p. 727. b. — a-yi[jt.e^ov » T^vcj tqv 'I-yjabv «7ro t5 
X^tfS, uXhcc woXXw TrXiov ol^a tv Eivat 'lyjffSv Tov X^ifov, t^ t^j 
^.yp^vji/ ojvtS, wpci? TOV * "Tr^cJloroxov 'TTcia-^g y^taiuiiJ uXT^cc >^ to GuufJiOC 
avTe, «s wXeoi', bI hT stwj ovo/Accs-ai, eivui tv oXov Thro, oTTe^ 
* KoTO^u^Avoq Tw Kt^Iw £v 'n\zvixx Efiv. TIic studicd purpose of 
Origen to avoid the en-our of the Valentinians, drove him into 
the opposite extreme; and led him to adopt this notion re- 
specting our Lord's body, which was afterwards improved upon, 
by the Eutychians. At how early a period the reading af 
Origen was adopted in some MSS. of the Egyptian text, must 
be apparent from the testimony of Socrates, vid. supr. p. 303<r 
n. ^'^ ; the weight of his evidence in its favour is however an- 
nulled by the consideration of his having been addicted to the 
heresy of the Origenists, vid. supr. p. 4^40. n. ^.' : as might be 



( 483 ) 

duced that exposition from whence his followers have 
corrupted the reading of the vulgar edition. 

Collected from the fbreclted reference to the disputed verscj 
ivhich was apparently written by Socrates with a view to the 
passage of Origen now before us, as well as to the reading of 
the Italick translation, vid. supr. p. 303. The various readings 
of this passage may be now easily traced. The first lineaments 
of the reading before us occur in Irenseus ; after referring to 
Joh. XX. 31. he observes, Id. adv. Haer. Lib. III. cap. xvi. § 5* 
p. 206. — " Joannes Domini discipulus confirmat — prajvidens 
has blasphemas regulas, quas dividunt Dominum, qiiantum ex 
ipsis attinet, ex altera et altera substantia dicentes eum factum : 

propter quod et in Epi&tola sua sic testificatus est nobis 

* Quis est mendax nisi qui negat quoniam Jesus non est Ckristiis? 
hie est Antichristus.* This sentiment was adopted by Origen 
vid. supn and Tertullian; adv. Marc. Lib. V. cap. xvi. p. 473. 
But the particular reference of S. Irenaeus to 1 Joh. ii. 22. in 
this place, as the chief tex^ opposed to the Valentinian and Mar- 
cionite heresies, and of Tertullian to the vulgar reading of the 
disputed text, clearly evince that they tvere Unacquainted with 
the reading of Socrates, Tert. de Carn. Christ, cap. xxiv. p. 
311. " Certe * qui negat Christum in carne venisse, hie Anti- 
christus est :' fiudam et absolutam, et simplici nomine naturae 
SU85, pronuncians * carnem^ omnes disceptatores ejus ferit* 
Sicut et definians ipsum quoque * Christum* unum multiformis 
Christi argumentatores quatit, qui alium faciunt Christum^ 
alium Jesum.' As this direct reference to 1 Joh* iv. 3. proves 
that Tertullian found in his copies all that is retained in thei 
vulgar Greek ; the inference from it proves, that he did not find 
the various reading of Socrates ; as it is perffectly nugatory, if 
Tertullian read " qui solvit Jesum," either separately or con- 
jointly with " negat in carne venisse." From Tertullian the 
former reading descended to Cyprian, Ambrose, and August 
tine, and made its way into the Latin version, merely as a gloss 
on the received reading: and was finally admitted, in a long 
quotation from this version, into the translation of St. Irenaeus; 
lb. cap. xvi. p. 207. What adds the strongest confirmcitioa to 



{ 481 ) 

The various readings of Luc. xi. 2. 4^^ are of 
the same character^, as relating' to the fundamental 

this assertion, is, that St. Irenaeus's work was translated in the 
times of P. Leo the great, when the Roman Church took an 
active part against the Nestorian heresy, which was fundamen- 
tally overthrown by this text as quoted by Socrates, vid. supr. 
p. 303. n. ^'\ It could not have been therefore safe for the 
authour of this translation, which was most probably made with 
a view to oppose the rismg heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, 
to depart in this instance from the authorised Latin version. 
Of the integrity of the received reading, there cannot be there- 
fore the smallest reason to doubt ; as it is supported by the 
most unquestionable authority, and nothing weakened by the 
testimony of dissenting witnesses. (L) It is confirmed by the 
internal evidence ; as corresponding with St. John's manner, 
who commonly makes similar antitheses, opposing an affirma- 
tive and negative proposition ; comp. Job. i. 3. 1 Joh. v. 10. 
12. vid. Erasm. n. in 1. (2.) It is confirmed by the external 
evidence, as it is acknowledged, not only by St. Polycarp in 
the Eastern Church, and Tertullian in the Western, within a 
short period of the death of St. John, but by the invariable 
consent of the Greek Fathers and Manuscripts, and of the 
Oriental Versions. 

^^ The extraordinary omission of the following clauses of the 
Lord's prayer, in St. Luke, have been already specified ; supr. 

p. 383. v][/.uiv iv To7q tf^ayo?? yEVjjS^Tft? to ^ihvitA.oc. ctf, Ui Iv 

ipotvu iC) Im TTiq 5^55? .... aXAa ^vaoci tijaxi; utto t« orovjj^e. It Is not 

to be denied, that Origen, in composing his tract " On Prayer," 
believed these passages not written by St. Luke, as he ex- 
pressly states that they did not belong to the Evangelist's text ; 
Orig. de Orat. Tom. I. p. 232. a. 210. c. 256. c. But it does 
not follow, that they did not exist in Origen's copies, much 
less in the received text of the orthodox. On the contrary it 
appears, even on his ov/n testimony, that those passages ex- 
isted. in the copies v/hich were before him; and that in assert- 
ing that they formed no part of St. Luke's text, he was misled 
by copies of the most equivocal character, (1.) Where he 



( 485 ) 
tenets of Marcion, relative to the abode of his Good 
•God above the heavens^ and to his special provi- 

professes to detail " the entire context and series of St. Luke's 
words,*' the Lord's prayer is wholly omitted, a blanJc space ex- 
isting in the MS. where it should have been inserted : Orlg. lb. 
p. 200. a. oXos OS sl^ixos T8 ^»i]a ^ruq '^X^^* * "*' lyivflo tv rZ 
liven avTov TT^oa-iv^ojAetoy' k. t. I. Luc. xi. \. Having merely 
completed the first verse, to the beginning of the Prayer, the 
context is broken off; on which the Benedictine editours ob- 
serve, lb. p. 200. n. «. " In Codice ms. Jioc loco est hiatus, ad 
sj)atium trium circiter linearumy licet nihil ad sensum deside- 
rari videatur !*' (2.) As it is indisputable that this blank was 
intended for the Prayer, nothing being wanting to complete 
the sense of Origen's context, it seems impossible to assign any 
reason for its omission, but that it differed in this place from 
Origen's subsequent statement, and consequently contained the 
disputed passages. (3.) In referring to the prayer as previ- 
ously quoted, Origen having cited part of Luc, ibid. 1. adds the 
beginning of the Prayer as contained in that Evangelist, and 
includes a part of the disputed reading, with t^ ra £|?j. I have 
already cited the passage of Origen at length supr. p. 462, 
n. ^^ : and it not only positively contradicts the assertion, that 
the first clause tiixuv, 5 Iv fo7i isnvoif was wanting in St. Luke's 
text ; but implicitly declares, that the whole of the prayer ex- 
isted in that Evangelist, as it was generally repeated: Orig. 
ibid. p. 222. a ^j^acrxgj avru irfoutvxic^^ai, dxT^a. tu Ila?^* Xiyovlas* 
* Uaire^ rijxouv, © £V ToTf w^avoTf/ xj ra l^nq. (4'.) Orio-en eX' 
pressly admits, that most people supposed the same form of prayer 
had been delivered by St. jMatthew and St. Luke ; although 
he proceeds to offer three reasons which induced him to be of 
a different opinion ; Id. ibid. p. 226. e. xj sr^o iro^^uv ye Trafd- 
rn^r^sov oT» MulBafof ?^ 6 Aaxoif Zo^aisv olv rois TioWois rr,v 
ccvTYiV a.^a.isy^cc'pivcci v7iQli%T:coiJLhr,v "rr^oq to ^sTv aruq '^pocrevxea-Bxi 
^fQSBv%viy. In the passage which follows this declaration, 
Origen's text is palpably interpolated, as must be apparent to 
any person of moderate penetration ; the whole texture of hiai 
giibject being disjointed by the insertion of the Lord's prayer, 



( 4S6 ) 

dence, as extending to the affairs of this lower world. 
The reading^ of the heretick's Gospel having been 

as conceived to be read In St. Luke, which was plainly omitted 
in this place, as the following circumstances sufficiently demon- 
strate. (1,) It was certainly inserted previously, in Origen's 
autograph, as appears from the blank already specified. (2.) 
Its insertion in this place, together with the two sentences 
which are used to qualify its introduction; (lb. p. 226. f. 
Ix^^^ ^^ <** >^£|ek ..... Toy TpoTTov civrov, lb. p. 227. b. iv y»^ tu 
slfixco .... a,tct.ysypafjL[A.£vvi ivfiaxficti) SO completely disjoint the 
contexture and suspend the sense of Origen's text, as to leave 
him scarcely intelligible. (3.) The introduction of Ihese pas-» 
sages reduces the context of Origen to perfect nonsense ; as 
he declares it to be his intention to search and point out the 
places in which the words of St. Matthew and St. Luke seeme4 
to diflfer, (as he accordingly does, pp. 251. e. f. 252. a. &c.) 
but which are here forcibly pointed out by contrasting the 
difievent statements of the Evangelists; Id. ibid. p. 227. b, 

TO. p-nixc^cc el t^ yitlviuvroi Tivce, lyti a^^J3^o^JJ, (%XAa& xj £v aXXoiy 
^ia(f)e'§civ (pa/vETaf us E^ci/vwvrey avra, ^a^as-o^ffoptev. On dis- 
carding those ridiculous passages which have been foisted inta. 
^he text, Origen'5 context may be thus connected; Ibid. p. 
226. e. x^ iT^o TTuvluv Tfo-^xinpiniiov on o MalSaro^ »<J AsxSs ^o|a»£r 
ffrV ToTf 7ro?;Ao»s Trji* atnYiV oivuyty^oc^ivui vfFolilvffai/.evvjv wgoj to oeTif^ 
siTUi w§oo"£y%£crSai v^oaiv^nv [3 * Tlurs^ rtfum,* (x«t rot l^-nq 
l^aq tS,) ... * «^^i ^vffXi vfAci'; o(.7ro tS wovijps.* [] "J XskHov ol wgoj 
nrhi i^raq v'rco'Ka.^ji.^avo^ccq, oVt itquTov fjXv tx fLT^fjt.ot\a, zl kJ yiCltiuvoi 

^tira irccpctfrjffoijm' ^ft^TEpof ^l oVt «;(; oTov Te try inv uvfnv wpoo-typ^JiR 
iC, iv fZ op£» ^iysa^oii* Udoc, ' louv Tay o%^«s ani^rtf ore xa^ij-ocfh^ 
ayra Trpocrjj^^ow avr^ ol /xaSjjIa* ayra x^ dvoi^xi to ro/xa etvT^ 
S^/t^affxEi»'' E il 'i? ^'' '''? s'***' uvTov h ro'^ru TJ^» vpoatv^o^zvoVf aq 

7rpc£7£yp(j£o-^aj X, T. 6. The places of the interjected passages 
are here marked by brackets. That they are interpolations 
must be apparent from the connecting particles, by which the 
sentence is held together ; wfoj to h7» '^rcus ^rf oafv^E^^aj, being 



( 487 ) 

admitted into the Commentary of Origen^ thence 
made its way into the Palestine text; the opinion of 

inseparably conjiected with iloire^ h^Kuv «. t. I : wpo? rh «Twr 
vTToXuix^utiovlai being as inseparately connected with its antece- 
dent ^o^cniv a,v Tore TroAAor? : and ^ iv ru o^u being as insepa- 
rately connected with ^ h -vZ «?»ai h imu Ti^f. Thus far, of 
course, Origen affords us no countenance in believing that 
the contested passages were wanting in the text of St. Luke, 
as read in his copies. And whatever be thought of the above 
eraendaiion, no more is fairly deducible from his concluding 
remark ; as he there submits it to his readers, *' n^hether it were 
not better to consider the prayers different which had some 
common parts;" Ibid. p. 227. d. ptvj^j-ors ^\ ^sXrioy r, hoc<p6^sf 
vofA-i^ta^cci Taj v^ocivxtif noivd rivei ix'^fftn^ fJLSfr,, This COncludino* 
remark, added to his first observation on the subject, that 
" St. Matthew and St. Luke appeared to many to have deli- 
vered the same form of prayer," I Mc^l^uXoq «; 5 Ai^Kus Jogaiev 
ay Tors 'TToXKoT^ rr,v avrr,v dvocfty^acpivui vTroTErvTrMfjLivnv ir^off^ 
svx^v, prove to my entire satisfaction, that the generality of 
copies retained the disputed passages, as they exist in the Vul- 
gar Greek. II. Our next object is to enquire, where Origen 
had the first intimation, that the disputed passages were not a 
part of St. Luke's text. And this, I am of opinion, he pro* 
ceeds directly to specify in the following words. Id. ibid. p. 
227. d. ^-nlia-avlsq ^c ^ ^ap« tw Mu^xif, |t*Wole XavBuvr) ^^«5 ^ 
ToiavTYi tVooy»a,uSafl6 Iv^ocnvx^] umyty^afA,fjt.iv„, a ^' 'l^^o^ tyKt\^ 
y,svov TTfocEvx^^ iv^of^sv. Thc absurdlty of this assertion affords 
a sufficient proof that the passage is corrupt : for how is it pos* 
sible that Origen should deem it necessary « to search" in St. 
Mark for the Lord's Prayer, and believe, that when he com- 
pleted his search, " no trace of such a prayer as he required 
could have escaped him:" particularly when Ammonius'S 
Harmony had been some time in use, and Marcion had pub- 
lished the Gospel of St. Luke, containing the very object of 
Origen's search ? For Trapa rZ Mapy.cf, 1 must therefore sub- 
stitute irapa rZ MapxiuHy and understand Origen as meahirig, 
tliat " having searched in Marcion's edition of St» Luke for a 



( 488 ) 

that early critick having been clearly in favour of 
the notion^ that the vulgar text of St. Luke was in- 

prayer agreeing with that contained in St. Matthew, that he 
might leave no source untried in wliich he might be likely to 
meet it, he found no trace of it;" such indeed must have been 
the result of his search, as Marcion's prayer differs in every 
petition from St. Matthew's. The emendation however which 
^s thus confirmed (1.) by the internal evidence of Origen's 
text, and (2.) by the circumstances of the case before us, is 
finally established by these additional considerations. (3.) 
Origen, in the course of the tract before us, quotes one of 
ihe principal texts of Marcion, as read in that heretick's Gos- 
pel: vid. supr. p. 471. n. % (4.) What lays the question at 
rest, he quotes the Lord's prayer itself in the very form in 
which it was used by Marcion. This is apparent from the 
testimony of TertulUan, who gives us the Lord's prayer, with- 
out the disputed passages, in the very form in which it appear- 
ed in that part of Origen, where St. Luke and St. Matthew's 
texts are contrasted ; vid. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. 
p, 432. Nor can there be a doubt, that TertuUian quotes in 
the place referred to, from Marcion's Gospel. (1.) Such was 
Jiis professed object, in opposing that heretick; Tert. ibid, 
cap. i. p. 403. ** — Ad ipsum jam Evangelium ejus [Marci- 
pnis] provocamus, quod interpolando suum fecit." Id. ibid* 
cap. vi. p. 407. " Sed alium jam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, 
ut professi sumus, Evangelium Marcionis provocantes," &c. 
(2.) Unless the Lord's prayer was found in Marcion's Gospel, 
any inference made from it, by TertuUian, on any other ground 
tihan that of its having been obliterated by that heretick, was 
not only beside that writer's purpose, but wholly nugatory. 
In Marcion, pf course, Origen had the first intimation, that the 
prayer of St. Luke differed altogether from that of St. Mat- 
thew. The reasons which inclined him to be rather of this 
opinion, than that of the generality of persons, who considered 
that the Evangelists had written the same form, are specified 
by him, at large, lb. p. 227. a. sqq. (1.) The prayers contained 
sotne dissimilarity in the language, even admitting them to be 



( 489 ) 

terpolated in those places in which it differed from 
Marcion's Gospel, and agreed with the text of St. 

equally full in the expression, and adequate In the sense, Ibid, 
b. (2.) They were delivered at different places, and to differ- 
ent persons, Ibid. c. (3.) Though Origen saw that this state- 
ment was liable to some objection, Ibid, d : yet he saw some 
propriety (which I trust no other person will be likely to dis- 
cover) in our Lord's delivering himself more fully to the mul- 
titude, than to his disciple, who asked him apart, lb. p. 365. a. 
And as these differences more fully evinced that St. Matthew 
and St. Luke alluded to totally different incidents, which was 
the main object that Origen undertook to establish, he rea- 
dily acquiesced in the latter conclusion ; having had some 
strange notions relative of the interpolation of the Evangelists 
from each other, when he was unable to reconcile their differ- 
ent statements, vid. supr. p. 433. n. *^ III. The testimony of 
Origen being disposed of, there will be now little difficulty in 
evincing the corruption of the Palestine text ; and in ascer- 
taining the genuine reading of tlie passages before us. In order 
to accomplish this object, it may be observed; (L) There 
seems to be no possible cause, that can be suggested, which 
will be adequate to account for our Lord's varying at one time 
from his practice at another, while he had the same object in 
view ; as we must conclude to have been the case, as the sub- 
ject, order, and expression of the different prayers which lie 
dictated, are nearly the same. (2.) Admitting that he deli- 
vered the same form of prayer, it is wholly inconceivable that 
St. Luke could have mutilated it in the manner in which it 
occurs in the Palestine text ; not only omitting some of the 
solemn forms of supplication which had been long consecrated 
by the observance of the Jews, but reducing the prayer to the 
compass of an ejaculation. (3.) It is infinitely more difficult to 
assign any plausible reason for the fact; that our Lord should 
omit, or the Evangelist overlook, just as mucli of the form of 
prayer which was delivered in the Sermon on the Mount, as 
adapted it to the peculiar opinions of the heretick Marcion. 
This consideration alone seems to set the question at rest, and 



( 490 ) 

Mattliew. Together with the above passages, which 
relate to the Lord's Prayer, we may join that con- 
to identify the true authour of the corruption of the text ia 
question. That the Lord's prayer, as read in the Palestine 
text, was accommodated to Marcion's opinions, is apparent 
from more than the testimony of Tertullian, who declares that 
it was admitted into Marcion's Gospel in that mutilated form 
in which it appears in the Palestine edition. It is rendered 
evident by the fact, that the suppressed passages were irre- 
concilable with Marcion's peculiar tenets. (1.) The " Fa- 
ther,'* who is supplicated in this prayer, was addressed as 
*' in heaven ;" the Father whom Marcion assigned to Christ, 
had his abode above the heavens ; vifxuvy o Iv rot'^ BpavoTq was con- 
sequently discarded, as designating the Creatour whom Mar- 
cion did not acknowledge as the Father of Christ; vid. S. 
Ilpiphan. Heer. xlii. p. 328. c. S. Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. IV. 
cap. iii. ^ !• P' 230. (2.) The Father of Christ was also iden- 
tified in the description of the God who resided " in heaven, 
snd whose will was done on earth ;" for, under this character, 
the Creatour was likewise designated ; ytvvt^riTa to ^iMfxa, ca, 
v; tv ti^av^ xj ETTi T)5s yvgy was consequently rejected as incon- 
sistent with the notion of Christ's mission, who came to abolish 
the power and dominion of the Creatour ; vid. Tert. adv. Marc. 
Lib. I. cap. xvi. p. 357. conf. supr. p. 433. n. ^°. (3.) The 
attribute of severity belonged to the latter deity, that of good- 
ness having exclusively belonged to the higher principle in 
Marcion's system, who did not interpose in earthly concerns ; 
itXAa fva-ai hy^oii airo tS irovrif^ was Consequently omitted in 
Marcion*s prayer, as unsuitable to the God whom that here- 
tick exclusively acknowledged as the object of worship, vid. 
Tert. ibid. Epiphan. ibid. p. 329. b. It is,l trust, unnecessary 
to otFer another remark on this subject. There can be now 
little reason to doubt that the various readings before us must 
be ultimately referred to the heretick Marcion ; that they were 
prepared for admission into the sacred text in the writings of 
Origen ; and were transferred from his writings into the Pales- 
tine text, in tliQ library of Caesarea. Here they were found by 



( 491 ) 

talning the doxology^ Mat. vi. 13'*. as connected 
with the same subject. The Marcionites^ however, 

St. Jerome, and adopted in the Latin Vulgate ; and thus came 
to the knowledge of St. Augustine: such being the only vouchers 
by whom they are attested. That the Byzantine text possesses 
the genuine reading, is not merely evinced by this negative 
argument arising from the palpable corruption of the Pales- 
tine. The reading of the former text is not only supported by 
all versions, the modern Vulgate excepted ; but by the implicit 
testimony of Origen in the Eastern church, and of Tertullian 
in the Western: vid. Tert. de Orat, cap. vi. p. 121. 

^* This verse, containing the doxology of the Lord's prayer, 
in St. Matthew, is found in the Greek Vulgate, and the old 
Italick and Syriack Versions, besides the Sahidick, Ethiopick, 
Arabick, Persick, and some copies of the Coptick, but is omit- 
ed in the Egyptian and Palestine texts, and consequently io 
the second and third edition of the Italick version: vid. supr- 
p. 380. conf. Griesb. n. in h. 1. In Origen's tract on Prayer, 
we discover the source of this defalcation ; the text before us 
not having been included expressly in his exposition: vid. 
Griesb. ibid. But we cannot thence conclude that it was 
wanting in Origen's copies ; on the contrary, we mvst rather 
conclude from his testimony, that he was aware of its exist- 
ence in the sacred text. (L) That he omits it in his exposi- 
tion, concludes nothing; as it really forms no part of the prayer, 
and consequently it did not come within the compass of Ori- 
gen's design to expound it : after having dispatched the last 
petition^ he observes; Orig. de Orat. Tom. I. p. 271. a. ^y.iT 

7.670V. (2.) He plainly intimates, that something more not 
only existed in his text, but that some doxology was to close 
the prayer which he expounded. Id. ibid. d. kJ e^r* maai, rr.v 
ivyjiv gis" ^o^oXoyj'av ©eS, <^ta Xp»j-S 1<j uy'iu Tlvsvixocriy xalccTTuViBOv. 
(3.) He proceeds if not to expound yet to illustrate the doxo-« 
lQgy» by a reference to the Psalms, which is wholly irrelevant,, 
if we do not consider the common doxology before him; Id. 
ibid, d, T»T»s ^e Ttfs roVy?, ui irfoiiTro^tv ^iscrvu^fj^svui tvp^^u 



( 492 ) 

have nothing to answer for, on the score of can- 
celling this verse^ as they rejected the entire Gospel 

Iv roui ypoi^ccis* Tof /aev rris ^o^o\oyia.s ^»a rarcov h halorf Tpirw 

yh E7ri T^v »<T(pa>iBi<zv uvT^q, u x>.iBr,a-floci s\s Tov alwva T» alftJvos** 

x^ Ta w^£<^a Js rary t5 4'aX/i/5 ^o^oXoylav 'nzptiy^zi t« lia/^or. 

As these considerations render Origen's testimony at least 
neuter ; the following circumstances are fully adequate to esta- 
blish the authenticity of the disputed passage. (1.) Had the 
doxology been interpolated in St. Matthew, there can be no 
reason apparently assigned, why it should not have been also 
inserted in St. Luke. (2.) Its uniform omission in St. Luke 
involves as strong an argument, evincing the probability of its 
partial sitppression in St. Matthew, as disproving the probability 
of its partial interpolation in the text of that Evangelist: as 
the former correction might have been made on the autho>- 
rity of St. Luke, the latter must have been made against it. 
(3,) The introduction of this passage in St. Matthew, and its 
omisuion in St. Luke, involves the strongest presumptive proof, 
that it was dictated by our Saviour. As the forms of prayer 
contained in the different Evangelists were given previously to 
the abrogation of the Mosaick Law, they were accommodated 
to the Jewish Liturgy. And in strict consonance with the for- 
mularies of that Church, a doxology was subjoined by our Lord 
to the jmblick form of prayer given by him to " the multitude,'* 
but omitted in that which was delivered to " the disciple'* who 
asked him apart, and which was to be used in private; vid, 
Lightf. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. vi. 13. Tom.IL p. 303. ed. Amst.— 
" hoc potius in causa fuisse, cur secundo formulam orationis fla- 
gitarent, nempe quod primam istam pro piiblica reputarent, cum 
et ex adjectione Coronidis Antiphono publico in Templo adeo 
similis, prsesertim vero ex adjectione Amen non nisi in coctibus 
usitati, hoc facile argueretur: oratur ergo iterum, ut privatim eos 
orare doceat ; et ille eandem repetit formulam omissis vero Coro- 
nidc et Amen^ quae publicum usum sapuerunt." (4,. ) The subject 
matter of the doxology is decisive of the point at issue ; as it is 
literally adopted from the Jewish ritual, with the entire sub- 



( 493 ) 

in which it occurs. The deviation of the Palestine 
text from the Byzantine^ is however easily account- 
ed for ; having originated from a misconception of 
Origen's testimony^ which was conceived to nega- 
tive a passage which it merely passed over. 

Of the texts next in importance to those which 

stance of the Prayer before us ; Lightf. ib. p. 303. How it could 
have made its way into the sacred text, and have been append- 
ed to the form of Prayer, which, as dehvered by Christ himself, 
must have been deemed absolutely perfect, must for ever baffle 
the ingenuity of criticks or casuists, to discover. (5.) In four- 
fold difficulty must such a supposition be embarrassed, when it 
is remembered, that all the doxologies, used by the primitive 
Church, were Trinitarian. We have short forms of thi^ kind, 
which were used in the age of S. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ori- 
gen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, &c. ; 
but they are all addressed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
That at the early period, when the doxology was incorporated 
in the text, a doxology could have been adopted from th^ 
avowed enemies of the Church, and one which favoured their 
Anti-trinitarian prejudices against Christianity, is a supposition 
which I shall not waste a word in refuting. That it was superseded 
by a Trinitarian doxology in the next age to that which suc- 
ceeded the apostolical, is evident from the testimony of Lucian, 
who alludes to such a doxology in the following terms ; Lucian. 
Philopatr.Tom.n. p. 1011. e. ed. 1619. e«<7ov t«toi? T>3f ^vx^* «to 
Il<x7§of ap^o:.f/.Bi>oq >tj rr,v 'TToXvdivvfjf.ov cJ^w £»V TeAo? ETrj^iif. In this 
consideration alone I find a sufficient answer to the negative ar- 
gument, against its authenticity, which has been deduced from 
the silence of the early fathers. As it occurs in the Aposto- 
lical Constitutions, and is acknowledged, if not impHcitly by 
Origen, yet expressly by St. Chrysostome, we have, in those 
witnesses, sufficient vouchers for its authenticity. The autho- 
rity of St. Luke, aided by that of Origen, aftbrded Eusebius 
sufficient grounds to omit it in his text; and on the authority 
of his text, it has been suppressed in the versions which have 
descended from the Palestine edition. 



C 494 ) 
have been specified, Joh. i. 27 '^ relates to the pre* 

5^ This passage has been already exhibited, supr. p. 384-. 
Origen having occasionally omitted it in quoting the context, 
seems to have afforded Eusebius sufficient grounds for suppress* 
ing it ; the Arian tendency of his opinions, or more probably 
the desire of discountenancing the notion of Origen respecting 
the pre-existence of the sou), having induced him to cancel it 
in his edition. But Eusebius is here vi^holly deserted by the 
authority of his master; as Origen has not only repeatedly 
quoted this passage, but has expressly insisted on it, in proving 
the divinity of our Lord ; Orig. Comm. in Joh» Tom. IV. p. 
107» a. — acc<piq TO ra eTp/aS rni ^e'Ieo;?* * stoj viv o* ttirov o oTCiffit 

BawTtri? 'Ticos * s/x^^offS'ev aurn yiyovsv' 'InaSi tw ^^wto? avrSf 
%Tttt * TTpuToroy.os irotyriq tiliasaq* Jyat, ^i* t5> ot» * h, tS w^jj^wj^aro? 
avrS v(^e~i 7rai/TE5 l>^cc^o{xsv»* ^ta tSto yag (P'noiv, * SfXTrqoa^iy /X8 
7£70V£v,' on TTpuros /x« ^v. Conf. p. 80. a. 89. b. c. 106. d. 
109. d. After this express allegation of the passage before us 
by Origen, it seems unnecessary to bestow any attention on the 
negative argument deduced against it, from the silence of 
Gyril, Nonnus, or Chrysostome. A difficulty in reconciling 
^syovEv, in vers. 3. and 27. afforded sufficient grounds for its 
omission by those antient fathers ; since, if taken in the same 
sense in both places, vers. 3. either reduced Christ into the 
rank of a mere creature, or vers. 27. was incompatible with his 
glory as the authour of the creation. The cause of its omission 
in the Verona MS. may be at once seen on turning to n. '^ 
supr. p. 146 : and as to its suppression in the Coptick and Ethi- 
opick versions, it is sufficiently accounted for in the circum* 
stance of its being omitted in the Palestine text, from whence 
those versions descended. The negative argument against ifc 
is consequently without any force ; while the positive testimony 
in its favour seems more than adequate to its vindication ; not 
only the Byzantine and Egyptian texts, but the Italick and 
Syriack versions, with their derivatives, attest its authenticity : 
until therefore it can be shown, how those texts have been cor- 
rupted, we must necessarily conclude the contested passage is 
genuine. 



( 495 ) 

existence of Christ, and Luc. ix. 55 ^^ to the cause 
of his advent. The Arian tendency of the reviser 
of the Palestine text, and the Origenian tendency 
of the reviser of the Egyptian, respectively occa- 
sioned the suppression of both passages. To some 
vague notions, which the hereticks held respecting 
the object of our Lord's descent into hell, we pro- 
bably owe the suppression of Mar. vi. IV^. which 

^* This passage has been given at length, supr. p. S83. As 
it represents the salvation of the soul as having been the object 
of our Lord's advent, without any mention of the hcdy^ it ap- 
parently favoured the notion of the Marcionites, who main- 
tained this doctrine exclusively : vid. supr. p. 464^. n. ^^ As 
the contrary notion was held by the Origenists, who believed 
in the resurrection, it was first cancelled by them in the Egyp- 
tian text, and thence suppressed in the Palestine : and as Euse- 
bius, Basil, Cyril, and Gaudentius followed the latter text, it 
is consequently omitted in their writings. From the opposition 
of those witnesses, the passage before us of couree remains un- 
affected ; while it is abundantly supported by the internal evi- 
dence, and the testimony of the best and earliest witnesses. 
(i.) It is inconceivable that this passage could have been in- 
serted in the text of the orthodox, during tlie prevalence of the 
Marcionite heresy, which continued till the close of the fourth 
century, vid. supr. p. 4-69. n. ^°. But as it exists in the old 
Italick and Syriack versions, it must have been then intro- 
duced into the sacred text, or have existed in it from the 
beginning. (2.) As it occurs in all versions, it is so far sup- 
ported by the testimony of the best and most unimpeachable 
evidence ; and the general falsification of so many witnesses 
being wholly inexplicable, v*e must receive it as genuine. (3.) 
As it is acknowledged by Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius 
the Areopagite, and Theophanes of the Eastern Church, and 
by Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. of the V/estern, it seems 
idle in the extreme to question its authenticity, 

*' -This passage has been already given at large iUpr, p. 382, 



C ^^96 ) 

may be joined with the preceding texts, as not uti^ 
connected with them in subject. 

Of the remaining passages in which the Greek 
Vulgate differs from the Egyptian and Palestine 
texts^ Job. V. 3, 4^^ refers to the angehcal hierar- 

An adequate cause for its suppression in the Egyptian text may 
be suggested in the apprehensions indulged by the Origenists^ 
that it might be employed by the hereticks, to support their 
notion relative to the salvation of the Sodomites ; S. Iren. adv. 
Haer. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. § 3. p. 106. — " Sodomitns et ^gyptios 
fMarcion docuit], et omnes omn'mo gentes^ quae in omni per- 
inixtione malignitatis ambulaverunt, salvatas esse a Dom'mOf 
cum descendisset ad hiferos^* &c. It is certain, that some of 
the hereticks, who rivalled those nations in their diabolical 
excesses, rejected all the Evangelists but St. Mark ; and that 
the Catholicks had formed some hope that they might be led 
out of their errours by reading the Gospel of that Evangelist, 
which was better calculated to answer this end, when the dis- 
puted passage was cancelled ; Id. ibid. Lib. III. cap. xi. J 7. 
p. 190. " Qui autem Jesum separant a Ckristo, et impassibi- 
lem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod 
secundum Marcum est 'prceferentes Evangeliiim ; cum amore 
veritatis legentes illud corrigi possuntj** As these considera- 
tions account for the negative testimony of the Egyptian texty 
and its derivatives ; they add the strongest confirmation to the 
reading of the Byzantine, which is supported by the primitive 
Italick and Syriack versions; since the same circumstances 
must have created equal obstacles to prevent the interpolation 
of the latter edition, as to induce the mutilation of the former. 
And it must be observed, in confirmation of the received text, 
that it is supported by the Verceli MS. against the Egyptian 
edition. The weight of testimony adduced on the present 
question, thus clearly lies on the side of the Greek Vulgate. 

^^ This passage, relative to the descent of the angel in the 
pool of Bethesda, has been already laid before the reader, supr^ 
p. 374. Sufficient grounds for its suppression in the Egyptiaa 



( 497 ) 

cliy. These verses were probably omitted on this 
account^ by the Origenists, who were professed 
enemies of the Valentinians • as these hereticks per- 

text, existed in the tenets of the Marcosians. These hereticks, 
representing Jesus as a separate person from Christ ; conceiv- 
ing the latter the Spirit who descended on Jesus in the shape 
of a dove, distinguished between baptism for the remissiori of 
sins, and redemption to perfection, and ascribed the former to 
the visible Jesus, but the latter to the invisible Christ; S. Iren. 
adv. Ha2r. Lib. I. cap. xxi. § 2. p. 94?. to imv Se (iJ,7ili(Tfjt.cc t5 
<pxnio[A.svii 'l»3<7-tf, oi(pi<3BCiJS ufxciql HMV , fv)* ^i aTtoKurquaiv t5 h airid 
X§iS"» xoIsaSovJo?, sU rs7ielaa-iv. The latter they termed not only 
airo^^vT^aa-K; slq tthiibxrivy but Xvrpuiri? 'A/ygX»xr), ** the angelick 
redemption ;" supposing that the persons who received it> 
were made partakers of the Divine nature, like the angelical 
hierarchy ; conf. Iren. ibid. § 3. p. 95. As the Catholicks con- 
sidered the Angel descending in the pool of Bethesda, a type 
of the Holy Ghost, descending on the laver of regeneration ; 
vid. Tert. ut supr. p. 374^.; the Marcosians confounded the 
Angel Gabriel with the Divine Logos mentioned by St. John, 
vid. S. Iren* ibid, calpi xv. § 3. p^ 77. As the passage be- 
fore us might have been perverted, or was really quoted by the 
hereticks, to favour their superstitious practices ; it is highly 
probable, that the reviser of the Egyptian text, who certainly 
cancelled Mat. xx. 20. on similar grounds, also obliterated Joh^ 
v. 3, 4. vid. infr. n. ^^. As these considerations seem ade- 
quate to account for the variation of the Egyptian edition, and 
its derivatives, from the Byzantine ; and as the latter is sup- 
ported by the testimony of all Versions, but a few copies of thp 
Italick and Armenian, and is confirmed by Tertullian, ChrysoS- 
tome, Cyril, &c. there can be no reason to doubt, that it re- 
tains the genuine reading. The very varieties in the text which 
omit the disputed passage, indirectly confirm the Greek Vul- 
gate ; as they omit different portions of it, .they destroy their 
common testimony by varying from each other; and as they 
thus partially agree with the received reading, tjiey confirm it 
by tlieir separate testimony. 

Kk 



( 498 ) 

verted the doctrine relative to that order of beings, 
to many superstitious purposes. The causes which 
occasioned the suppression of Mat. xx. 23^', are 

^ Those passages, which have been already quoted, supr, 
p. 381. evidently owe their suppression in the Egyptian and 
Palestine texts, to the influence of the Marcionite and Marcosian 
heresies, seconded by the authority of Origen. The founder of 
those heresies having maintained the efficacy of a second and third 
baptism, in washing away the sins contracted after the first 
ablution ; those passages apparently afforded some countenance 
to their notions. In this sense they wrested the parallel pas- 
sage, in Luc. xii. 50. which occurred in the only Gospel which 
they acknowledged; vid. S. Epiphan. Haer. xlii. p. 304. c. 
The Marcosians, who distinguished between baptism for re- 
mission, and redemption to perfection, improved on this doc- 
trine ; vid. supr. p. 497. n. ^^ : and as they acknowledged the 
authority of St, Mattkexv, as well as St. Luke, they appealed 
particularly to the former, in confirmation of their opinions, 
citin"- the disputed passage^ S, Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. L cap. xxJ, 
§ 2. p. 94. kJ ro /XEV l^d.'Tili'JfMa vira 'luJciifVH KCtii^fysX^cn eJ? /aeIos- 
»oJ«y, TW Se a.7io}<VTqMUiM virh 'Irtffe x£KDf*i<r^or» si? n^^iiua-iv, kJ tSt 
tT»a» TTtg* a Uyn' ' xj u?^M /SawlKrfAa £%<*? |3a9r]taSKX», t^ iravv 

ai^,alT8/vtEvr/f to xa$icr«» ayra? iy. hhoiv kJ a^\Ti^uv fjcer avrS, tU rnv 

liQEiTToylx' ' hvoca^B TO ^ocnlio-iJLa, ^xTrlia^hc^^ o lya /xeXXw ^aTrJt'^ecrSa..* 
mi As this quotation cannot be referred to St. Mark, the latter 
of Evangelist not mentioning '* the mother of Zebedee's children," 
At [comp. Mat. xx. 20. Mar. x. 35.] we hare here an express tes- 
tb timony from St. Irenseus and the Marcosians in favour of the 
ec disputed passage ; and the true source pointed out which occa- 
q sioned its removal from the Egyptian edition. Origen, in ex- 
pounding the passage before us, was thoroughly aware of the 
use to which it had been applied by the hereticks ; he conse- 
quently obviates the conclusion which might be deduced from 
it, by expounding it so as to shut out the notion of a second 
baptism. In one of the two places where he has referred to it. 



ve 



( 499 ) 

much more apparent ; the influence of the Marcl- 
onite tenets on Origen*g Commentaries, having ob- 

he supplies the present mw, for the future y.iy^u «•»£»», contrary 
to the text of St. Matthew ; Orig. Exhort, ad MartjT. Tom. I. 

p. 291. b. ^HKct, ya^ fAti^ovoi upeyovlo Tt|tA?5 ol ^eAovlsj Ik ^i^tuv t^ s| 
svuv6fAUf KU^ecr^rivon rZ 'l>}cr5 ly rn &lx.aiKi\a, avrtij (pner) Tr^oq avrhi 
9 K&^»05* ' ^vvoca-^e 'TTiut to itolri^iov o lyw ttivco ;' irormov heyav rh 
[KaflC^iof* St. Matthew however reads ^vma^i mtTy to ^oI^^ioV 
S "tyu (AiK\M Irish. In the other, he corrects himself, fully 
acknowledging the vulgar reading to be genuine, while he qua* 
lifies it bjr referring to St. Mark, who had written mva for 
/^£XX« TrmTy; Id. Comm. in Mat. Tom. III. p. 717. c. uvoK^t^iU 
L© lite-vg2 sjVe {/.sra, ri' * ^vtaa^t -TruTt rh TroTsjpjoy, o syco fAiKXeo 
VIbTm;* S w? Mu^Koq uny^u-^s* * ^vvaa-^s to ttotv^iqv 'nuTv o eyed 
'nivdi''* ri TO ^ocTrlta-fAa, o lyu ^apli^oy.aif /?a7r1<er$^rat.' The dlf* 

ference between St. Matthew and St. Mark consequently lay 
not in the one having omitted, and the other retained, to 
^a,7f\i(T^a, \yu iS*7r!iJojtAa» |3a9rIt5-S?<'at ; but in the One having 
read lyi^ ^Uu, the other lyw [jL£?,Xa mtTv, But this distinction 
having been overlooked by the reviser of the Egyptian text, 
the former notion was adopted, and the passage accordingly 
cancelled, apparently with Origen's sanction, who was thus 
completely misrepresented. That the Greek Vulgate retains 
the genuine reading, cannot admit of a doubt. (1.) It is sup* 
ported by the evidence of the best and oldest witnesses ; the 
primitive Italick and the Vulgar Syriack. (2.) As it conse- 
quently existed in the sacred text at an early period ; if it is 
an interpolation, it must have been a direct concession to the 
Marcosians, which will be scarcely deemed probable. (3.) It 
must have made its way into the text in opposition to the testi- 
mony of Origen, which supposition must be deemed fully as 
improbable as the last ; as there could be no possible object in 
making such a correction. Assuming it therefore as obvious, 
that the vulgar reading is genuine, every deviation from it is 
easily accounted for. Having been suppressed in the Egyp- 
tian text 6n Origen*s authority misunderstood, it was conse- 
quently omitted, on the strength of the same authority in the 



( 500 ) 

viously furnished the revisers of the Egyptian and 
Palestine texts with sufficient authority for omitting 
this remarkable passage. 

In a word, there exists not a peculiarity in the 
tenets of those hereticks, or in the texts which they 
followed, which has not left some deep mark im- 
pressed on the editions of the sacred text which 
were published in Egypt and Palestine. To form 
antitheses between the Law and the Gospel, had 
been a leading object with Marcion, in order to 
illustrate the beneficent character of the first prin- 
ciple, and the severe character of the second, in 
his religious system '°°. Many of the corrections 
of the Egyptian and Palestine texts have conse- 
quently originated in attempts to destroy the force 
of those antitheses in the sacred text, which had 
been pointed by Marcion'°^ Some have arisen in 

Palestine edition. After the example of the former text, it was 
omitted of course in the Sahidick and revised Italick versions ; 
and after that of the latter, in the Latin Vulgate, Coptick, 
Ethiopick, and Persick. And as St. Epiphanius and Jerome 
followed the Palestine text, and St. Hilary, Ambrose, and 
Juvencus, used the revised Italick translation, it is of course 
omitted in their writings. The negative testimony of these 
writers can therefore have no weight when set against the con- 
curring testimony of the primitive Italick and Syriack, aided 
by the internal evidence, and the testimony of Irena^us. 

*^ Vid. supr. p. 464. n. ^*, 

'°* Immediately preceding the long passage suppressed in 
Luc. ix. 56. vid. supr. p. 383. in consequence of its connexion 
with the Marcionite notions, vid. supr. p. 495. n. ^®. the follow- 
ing^ antithesis occurs in the Vulgar Greek; Ibid. 54. 55. 



( 501 ) 
endeavours to amend his gross perversions '°^ or 

hroUcre, rf»^8«? ^« IviTtixYtO'tv avroT^, xj sitth** Ovk ol^un ola vni- 
fAoiroi Irs y/xEK. ya^ vlo<; a. T. e» The Opposition in this passage 
between the mild spirit of the New Covenant and the severe 
character of the Old, is forcibly pointed ; the passage was con- 
sequently taken by Marcion as an example of his antithesis ; 
Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. xxiii. p. 429. Repraesentat 
Creator ignium plagam, Helia postularde, in illo pseudopro- 
pheta. Agnosce Judicis severitatem : e contrario Christi leni- 
tatem increpantis eandem animadversionem,*' &c. By the sup- 
pression of w? xj H^»«j l-jFoUaB, the antithesis, if not destroyed, 
was at least kept out of view ; this phrase, though found in the 
Byzantine and Egyptian texts, and in the old Jtalick and Sy- 
riack versions, is however suppressed in the Palestine text, in 
the Latin Vulgate, and in the Coptick and Armenian versions. 
This various reading has obviously originated in the desire to 
destroy the antithesis of Marcion. 

*°* St. Paul, referring to Deut. xxv. 4. expresses himself as 
follows ; 1 Cor. ix. 8, 9. y) axi ^ o moii.os TCCVTx T^iyu ; \t yaq 
'fu Mua-iUi vduLco yeyfOfrrlcti* Ov (pi[A,uersiq /3Sv aXowfra. /!x>} ruv Qouv 
y.t>,si ru Qtu, But Marcion, not admitting the authority of the 
Law, corrected the passage as follows ; S. Epiphan. Hasr. xlii. 
p. 355. d. jxeTviXecytASVui avr) yd^ t« Iv nru {\, }ji.trvi\etyiji.iyu<; am 
tH' * \v yoip Tw3 yo/Aw,* y^zyi\ []o Ma^xiwj']] * Iv tw \Auv(xiu(; voyLUi 
\iyi\ ^i w^o rartf, *" z\ KjO vofxos ruvrec, « Xiysi'' thus destroying 
the appeal to the Law, and its testimony as cited in favour of 
the Apostle. The various reading of the Egyptian text has 
originated in a correction made with a view to the primitive 
reading, and the alteration of Marcion. In the Augean and 
Boenerian MSS. we find, yj eI zu\ 5 v6[xoi ravrot'Keysn the tes- 
timony of the Law is here admitted, in opposition to Marcion*s 
correction ; but the appeal to it is less forcibly put than in St. 
Paul. The truth is, that the antecedent passage in the Apos- 
tle's text looks so like a quotation from the Old Testament, 
though it is nothing of the kind, that the reviser of the Egyp- 
tian text, who had no means of verifying the fact, was afraid 
of the phrase o yo^cos ravra AiV«», and introduces the following 



( 50^ ) 

his foul aspeFsiqns of the Law'°M and some in 

quotation, not by appealing to its testimony, but by proposing 
it as a dovibt ; yy €< x^ o vofAOi tavrcc hiyn. The same difficulty 
seems to have struck Origen, but he disposes of it in a diiFerent 
way. Adhering more closely to the original, he preserves the 
hole of the words ; but he alters the position of the particle 
4k, after the example of Marqiouy and thus leaves the point 
ambiguous, of which he was doubtful ; Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. 
II. cap. iii. p. 388. e. ^ xa* o »o/*o? Tecvrx « Aiy** ; «y y'*9 *»"? 
Mm^vf »»f<y ysyp»w1^^. This reading has been adopted in the 
Palestine tej^t, and of consequence in the Latin Vulgate, and 
the Coptick and Armenian versions. As there can be no rea- 
son to doubt, from the direct object and decisive language of 
St. Paul, that the Greek Vulgate preserves the genuine read- 
ing, particularly as it is confirmed by the testimony of the old 
Italiek and Syriack versions; there can be little reason to 
question that the various readings of the passage before us 
have oi-igin^ted from the first disturbance of the sacred text by 
Marcion. 

^^ A remarkable reading, in which the Byzantine and Pa- 
lest:ine texts differ, occurs 1 Cor. x. 19. ri h ^u/x*; oVt aVJwXov 

jjtoi? Bvsi xa) « ©sw. Bj^z. thus corrected by Marcion, accord- 
ing to St. Epiphanius, lb. p. 320. d. ri h (pt^n otj £i^a^Xo3'i>7ov 

The c^use of this disturbance of the received reading is speci- 
fied by St. Epiphanius, lb. p. 359. b. cv Ti u Ma^xiw*, wfocr«« 
S.«x«j? -so* ' *£§9vi/]o.v,' vo^^ffcca kitl tS t4,ifx,ix,^at ra, ^vo hv6 fiction 

* 4|f£* T^ »^ * st^wi^tf,' cryva.'Jrli^^oti tat Uq TfOTrmu t/<» cr^ia-iv," . 

^iSavov ccv c■Q^ Yiv^'iaxilo to t?? crvxo^a»Iia5 -^tvffoq' w?, twv vv» Bt^ 
^vQyl<f)yy ToJv 5g role ^:VO»v%v h ^^w Upc^ 'IsqoaoXvfAcoVf xm) ru» 
T^r? €>^^04s Bvoflm o/Att c^tiyaiilofASVuy xcd hiiocisvovlvv [1. ^a»/<60<74 
Syevlw*] xa* a;)^; ©tw. Thus ttX^ov was Superseded by if^Sfloy, 
in order to bring disrepute on the Jewish Law, which Marcion 
held in »o estimation ; ra e^vn having been consequently sup- 
pressedj, ^s inconsistent with this application of the passage. 
The reviser of the Egyptian edition having made use of h^re- 



C 503 ) 

attempts to correct his false notions relative to the 
nature and attributes of God '°^, the person of Christy 

tical texts in compiling that edition, very closely follows the 
reading of Marcion. Deviating however from the principal 
emendation, h^ read, ny^ on si^o/Xov irt ri, instead of ri oV» 
Uq6bu%v ri is-i: and thus removed the heretical tendency of 
the text, while he obviated the inference which might be drawn 
from the true reading ot» eVSo^Xov rt Ir** ; as implying that ido- 
latry was an indifferent matter. The reviser of the Palestine text 
having thas a ehoke between the Byzantine and Egyptian edi- 
tions, adopted a reading which partly agreed with both in the 
first clause ; following the order of the latter text, but retaining 
the terms of the former. But in the second clause, he agreed 
with the Egyptian text, in following the reading of Marcion : 
he consequently read r! h (p>)/x» ; ot» sI^qXo^uIov t* ir» ; ^ en 
iiZcoXov ri tri ; aAA' on a, ^vam ^a»/*o>»o»? h'vaai ^ Gnuj, Some 
copies however of the Palestine text omit on sl^o:^6Bv%9 ri Irtv ; 
and others, r) on s'^Suho* ri Ir* ; some superfluity having been 
conceived to exist in this text, which was interpolated by Mar- 
cion, it was consequently removed by each reviser, according to 
the bias of his judgment or principles. Thus admitting the 
Vulgar Greek to retam the genuine readhjg, every corruption 
of the text may be traced from the first correction of Mar- 
cion ; the various readings obviously destroymg the credit of 
one another, while th^ add some confirmation to the received 
reading : of its authenticity there cannot of course be any rea- 
son to doubt. 

*°+ In the Byzantine and Palestine texts we read, Mat. xxv. 
41. "TFo^tvea-Bs uTT Ifxa ol Holn^uiiivoi tt? to wy^ to cclvviov TO ^jTOJ^taff- 
/xs'vov ru ^iu^oT^u' but in the Egyptian text, to iToi/^aa/^iej'oi' is 
superseded by o ^Toi/^acrev o Yla%^ //.a. Both readings are 
found in Origen; the former in Comm. in Rom. Tom. IV. 
p. 463. d : the latter in Comm. in Mat. Tom. III. p. 8S5. e. 
There can be little doubt however, that the latter reading is 
merely a gloss on the former ; the phrase having been changed 
as a corrective to the notion of the Marcionites, who asserted 
the existence of a second God, besides the Father of Christy 



( 504 ) 
and the character of the legal dispensation '°K In 

to whera they ascribed the attributes of justice and severity ; 
vid. supr. p. 463. n. ^^. This reading may be probably referred 
to Justin Martyr, who maintained a controversy against Mar-? 
cion, and who has given to similar texts a like tendency ; vid, 
supr. Just. Mart, supr.p. 465. n. ^^ p. 474. n. ^^ conf. Dial, cum 
Tryph. p. 301. d. From Justin Martyr, it descended to Ire^ 
nseus, Tertullian, Origen, &c. and thus made its way into the 
Egyptian edition; from whence it regularly passed into the 
revised Italick version ; but under circumstances, which dis- 
close that it was adopted in this text by an unskilful correc- 
J;ion; vid. supr. p. 183. n. ^^°, As the reading of the Greek Vul- 
gate is not only corroborated by the testimony of the primitive 
Italick and Syriack, but by all known versions but the revised 
Latin, which is entitled to no voice, as it was corrected by the 
Egyptian edition ; there can be no doubt that it retains the 
genuine reading ; particularly as it is supported by the testi- 
mony of Origen in the Eastern Church, and of Tertullian in 
the Western ; vid. Orig. ub. supr. conf. Tert. de Carn. 
Christ, cap. xiv. p. 306, 

*°^ The following examples may be offered in support of the 
above assertion. In the Egyptian text, the following interpo- 
lation occurs, Luc. vi. 5. rj? av'^ij VfAS^oc, Bta,o'ei[Asvo^ r^vx i^ya^o^ 

IJi.UKci(ioq iT* ^l ^e (ji,r) oi^a?, |7r»>ta]apa]o{ not) 7rccfcc^ccit3<; it tS »o/x»« 

And the following occurs in the Palestine, Mat. xxvii. 49. 

«?k?vo5 OS. ha^uv "^dyyriVy hv^iv uvth t^v 7r^£ygav, noti l|^xSev v^uq kou 

alfAcc. The latter passage is plainly taken from Joh. xix. 34. 
and is here probably opposed to the Marcionites, or other 
Docetae, who denied the Incarnation, and rejected the testi- 
mony of St. Jphn ; or possibly omitted this passage in their 
. copies of the Evangelists ; vid. supr. p. 464, n. ^\ From what- 
ever source the antecedent passage is adopted, it obviously fur- 
nishes an authority against those hereticks, who blasphemed 
the Jewish Law, and conceive^ that Christ came to destroy it, 
vid. supr. p. 463. n. ^°. 

•^ The reading of the Byzantine text in L\ic. xii. 38. has 



( 505 ) 

this manner it is not uncommon to find the peculiar 
phrases of Marcion's text'°^ and the very order of 

been already stated supr. p. 185. n. ^^\ The source of the 
various readings of this passage is revealed in the following de- 
scription of the correction of Marcion; S. Epiphan. User. xlii. 

p. 314. b. avl* tS* * hvlspo. V) 'FfhTj) (pv\oiiiv),' £'';<;«>' * ^^TrBprnYiV 

^vXatKvi'* The grounds of this correction are thus suggested 
by St. Epiphanius; Ibid. p. 335. EA-^^a/xla* o Klnvu^; y,[\a,rf^-l'aq 
T»j Sgjtff T^oyaq avovruf Ttpos r'hi eavis v'JiovQiacv. a y«p viiAzpivca 
ylvovlon (pv'KotKoily ccKhoi vvxle^n/aj, uiib kanioaci zis t-^v ir^Jjrvw 
(tluXocicnVj Wfoay.'iTrriv rn? lirtiilcia-eatq s^ya-cHf ^ «>c aTTO tyiS sco elf 
TYiv gjTrs^av, uq aroj aXic-adxi p(x^iyfyy]acc<;. The received read" 
ing having been thus disturbed, the various reading of the 
corrected texts are formed with a view to the errours of Mar- 
cion. While they admit his correction into the text, they give 
the context such a turn as to subvert his notion that the watch 
ended with evening. The Egyptian text consequently reads ; 
Luc. ib. 38. Kul ia,» IaSjj (tijI eJTTfg/vy) (puKacuri, y.cci iv^via-n iiruq, 
fl0i'ri<J2i' Kot) iuv) Iv T>} ^Bvlsfia^ xal xri rpWyjf (jt.ay.ci^ioi slaiv l>iBTt/oi : 
and some copies of the Palestine ; xat lav tX% {rri gaTrs'^tvyj 
^uXocyc^ xat evp-n arwj iroiHillaf.s (j^omocqioi sifftv' ori dvocKXivaH avrtii 
OO OJ^KQVOJ^TSt avroiS' nav] h tv) h^li^f y.av Iv tjj r^Wr) ^t^Aaxjj eASjj; 

hoc) iv^r) tiTu; ixctadipioi ilcnv ikbTvoi, The parentheses in these 
examples clearly mark the interpolation; i^rwj 7rot55o-e» in the 
Egyptian text, being drawn out in the Palestine into Urut; 
voisvlaq lJLocy.a.p\o\ eiV»»* ot« x. t I. whicll is repeated from vers. 37. 
In fact, the revisers of both texts being here deserted, both by 
the received text and the text of Marcion, found themselves 
at liberty to pursue their own course in incorporating his read- 
ing in their r^^visals. Consequently, w^hile these texts destroy 
the testiniony of each other, they add the strongest confirma- 
tion to the reading of the Greek Vulgate. They mutualh^ 
retain all that could be borrowed from it, ol ^yAot excepted, 
which was obviously omitted to abridge a sentence that was 
embarrassed by a long interpolation ; they respectively conira- 
iliet each other in adopting more than it contains, and thus 



( 506 ) 

his language *°^ retained in the Egyptian and Pa- 
lestine texts, though the passages adopted from his 
Gospel and Apostohcum are given a totally different 
application from that which they possess in his 
writings. Through various channels those read- 
ings might have crept into the edition of Eusebius. 
The scripture-text of Tatian, which most probably 
conformed in many respects to the Gospel and 
Apostolicum of Marcion ^"^ ; the text of Hesychius, 

leave their joint or separate authority, when differing from the 
received text, deserving of no consideration. 

'°' One of the longest extracts from Marcion *s Apostolicum 
is taken from 1 Cor. x. 1 — 9. 11. transcribed by St. Epipha- 
nius, H{rr. xlii, p. 320. c. and repeated, lb. p. 357. b. With 
reference to the Marcionite notions, it omits the following pas- 
sages; Ibid. 1. Kcc) irotvles it? To» Muanv i^x'7r\iaotv\o, h t>} l»s^«^»J 
XM £» T^ ^a,7\a,(7a-^. Ibid. 8. ^%ct 7ro^»£t;w^sv, xaSwj th'E? ocvruv 
sTToeviva-aVf y.a) tTnaov 19 /A»a Y)[ji,tpot elKoaHpn^ ;^^^^a^s?. It deviates 
however in the following passages, from the Greek Vulgate ; 
in which it is followed by the Palestine edition, as collated 
by Euthalius, and found in the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. 
Ibid. 1. ^eXu Je. Vulg. ^eXa) yat^, Marc, PaL Ibid. /Jpw/Aa wvsv- 
uccliKov I'^ayov. Vulg, 'Trvevjx^tx.ov t^otyov /3gi/xa. Marc. Pdu tnfJt.A 
'rrtivu.cclii'.oii eVjov. Vulg, Trvivixotlmov eWiov ttdyLOt. MarC, Pal, 

*°* Tatian was a follower of Marcion, having adopted from 
him the fundamental tenets of the Encratites, whom he formed 
into a sect; vid. S. Iren. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 107. To the 
opinions which he borrowed from Marcion, he added many of 
the peculiar tenets of Valentinus, Iren. ibid. S. Epiphan. Haer, 
XLV. p. 391. c. Ashe thus required the authority of St. John 
to support his opinions ; Marcion having merely adopted the 
Gospel of St. Luke, vid. supr. p. 462. n. ". he consequently 
disposed the four Gospels in the form of a Diatessaron, omit« 
ing every thing which militated against his peculiar notions.; 
Theodor. Haer, Fab. xx, p. 303. »to? xa\ [o Toliavo?] As** 



( 507 ) 

which was compiled from various apocryphal worlcs"'^; 
and the Commentaries of Origen, which abounded 
in quotations drawn from heretical revisals of Scrip- 
ture "°, opened a prolifick source from which they 
directly passed into the Palestine edition. The 
facilities of correcting this text from Origen's writ- 
ing's, and the blind reverence in which that antient 
father was held in the school of Caesarea'", seem 

TBffo-ocr^m y.x><iifA,tv6v crvvV^eixsv evufytXioVf ras te ysyeaXoyla.s 9!rsffw 
x64^lXS, Kat to. n'K'Ka. oca. sx cr'rri^^a^o<; A«/3i^ xa]a aafKoi yiyivn* 

}/,Bvov rov KvQiov hUvvcriv. In this undertaking he merely fol- 
lowed his master Marcion ; S. Iren. ibid. p. 106. <* id quod 

est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumcidens, et omnia qucs 
sunt de generatione Domini conscripta aiiferens,** &:c. As the 
Epistles, not less than tlie Gospels, were unsuitable to the pur- 
poses of Tatian, until they were pruned of some obnoxious 
passages; it is probable he followed Marcion in mutilating 
them also ; or, as 1 am rather inclined to think, adopted the 
Apostolicum of his master, with some additions taken from the 
canonical text. It is apparent from the testimony of Eusebius, 
that he used an Apostolicum; and that it differed from the 
received text, in improving the language of the Apostles, by 
altering the order of their words : vid. supr. p. 468. n. ^^ ; 
but in this respect it agreed with the Apostolicum of Marcion, 
£is is evident from the last note ; vid. supr. n, '°^, 
'°^ Vid. supr. p. 444. sqq. et nn. 

Vid. supr. p. 330. n. *^ 

The following vindication of Pamphilus and Eusebius, in 
evincing that such a charge was urged, furnishes us with grounds 
for concluding, that it was not urged withoutloundation; Pamphil, 
Apol. pro Orig. Praef. p. 18. d. " Cum ergo haec eum [sc. 
Originem] de se dicere audiamus, et hujusmodi mente ac voto 
quae dicit asserere, rairaraur in tantum temeritatis aliquos esse 
profectos, ut qui se ita humilitate judicat, adstrumit quod ab 
aliis dicta ejus vel libri pro sermonibus Aj)ostolicis vel dicti&^tro- 



no 

Hi. 



( 508 ) 

to have rendered the corruption of this text tin- 
avoida])le. Short annotations or scholia had been 
inserted by Origen in the margin of his copies of 
Scripture; and the number of these had been con- 
siderably augmented by Eusebius"*^ most probably 
by extracts taken from Origin's Commentaries. A 
comparison between the text and comment con- 
stantly pointed out variations in the reading ; and 
Origen's authority having been definitive^ on sub- 
jects of sacred criticism, the inspired text was amend- 
ed by the comment. Had we no other proof of this 
assertion^, than the feasibility of the matter^ and the 
internal evidence of the Greek manuscripts "'^ we 
might thence assume the truth of the fact^ without 
much danger of erring. But this point is placed 
beyond conjecture, by the most unquestionable 
documents. In some manuscripts containing the 
Palestine text, it is recorded, that they were tran- 
scribed from copies, the originals of which had been 
^^ corrected by Eusebius'*^'' In the celebrated 

jpheticis haheantuvy aut quod ille ipse vel PropJietis vel ApostoUs 
comparetur. 

"* This is apparent from the following note, transcribed from 
a copy of Eusebius's edition of the Prophet Ezekiel, contained 
in the Codex MarchaHanus ; vid. Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Graec. 
p. 226, Praelimni. in Hexapl. p. 15. |M,£]£Xy/^S» Je q/.ttq civliypd^H 

* ^f.^iKY,^%'fi uTTo ruv necla, raj W^offeii '"E^WJCKuvy >c) ^icy§3"«;S"» utcq 

iaxo\ioyqa(prn%' o Kvai^ios syai ey^oXioc gra§e^^Jta. ITa/x(piXQf 
ic, Ec"7&/3<of 5^L0jphci/(7a,v%J' Conf. supr. p. 366. n. **°. 
" "3 Vid. supr. pp. 318. n. *°. 321. n. ^7. 322. n. *«. 458. n. *\ 
"+ Vid. supr, n. "*. 



( 509 ) 

Codex Marchalianus, the whole process observed In 
correcting; the text is openly avowed. The reviser 
there candidly states, that, *' having procured the 
explanatory Tomes of Orig-en, he accurately inves- 
tigated the sense in which he explained every word, 
as far as^ was possible, and corrected every thing 
ambiguous, according to his notion "^" After this 
explicit acknowledgment, it seems unnecessary any 
further to prolong this discussion. A text which 
bears internal marks of having passed through this 
process"^; which has been convicted, on the clear- 
est evidence, of having been corrected from Origen, 
cannot be entitled to the smallest attention. And 
as it has been thus corrupted from the same source 
with the Egyptian text, the joint testimony of such 
witnesses cannot be entitled to the smallest respect, 
when opposed in consent to the Byzantine edition. 

When the testimony of the Egyptian and Pales- 
tine texts is set aside, the number of various read- 
ings, which exist in these editions, or their descend- 
ants, necessarily lose their weight when cited against 
the Greek Vulgate. In the declining credit of these 
editions of the original, that of the Versions and 
Fathers which accord with them must be necessa- 

*" Not. Cod. Marchal. ub. supr. su7roqr,aixy%f run iji-^xf^ ti^m 

xaSw? cilov re ^f, y^ nav ci(jt.<^l^oXov Koclct tjji/ exe/va gvvoiav ^iwo- 

Tcc v'TTo Ev(Ti0i8 tlq Tov HacxAU'j Bl^r,fii.v»f kcc] £v oisois<pouviiVyrrji l^rtyri^ 
Cccos TYiv evvoiav ^vflrjaavlsSy tt^os ocvrrtv i^iuq^coadyLnv. 

''* Vid. supr. p. 33'i. n. '\ p. 313. n. ^^ conf. p. 458. n, *'. 



( 510 ) 

rlly implicated "^ We thus no longer require a 
clue to guide us through the labyrinth of those read* 
ings, however various or numerous. The testimony 
of the derivative witnesses^ whether existing in quo* 
tation or translation^ directly resolves itself into that 
of the principals, which contain the different editions 
of the original Greeks published in Egypt and Pa- 
lestine. That the different versions which are 
quoted against the Received Text, agree with those 
editions, rather than the Greek Vulgate, is merely 
owing to the circumstance of their having been 
made in the countries where those editions were 
received. And that certain of the Christian Fathers 
conspire in testimony with those Versions, is merely 
owing to the circumstance of their having written 
at a time when those editions were authorised. The 
matter before us thus reverts into the original chan^- 
nel; and the credit of the Egyptian and Palestine 
texts being undermined, the only various readings 
for which it is necessary to render an account, are 
those of the Byzantine edition. But from the alle* 
o-ation of friends ''^ not less than the concession of 
enemies "9, it appears, that they are neither impor- 
tant nor numerous ; falling infinitely short of what 
might be expected, when due allowances are made_, 
for the errours which are inseparable from the task 
of transcription, for the immense period during 
which the sacred text has been transmitted, and the 
multitude of manuscripts which have been col- 

•" Vid. sapr. p. 316. n. ". 

"« Vid. supr. p. 107. n. '^^ p. 118. n. *^ 

"» Vid. supr. p. 126. n.*^ 



( 511 ) 

lated with the most minute and scrupulous in- 
dustry. 

Here^consequently.this discussion might be brought 
to a close, were it not expedient to anticipate some 
objections which may be urged against the conclu- 
sion, which it has been hitherto my object to esta- 
blish. Of the texts of the Greek Vulgate, which 
have been vindicated as genuine. Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. 
iii. 16. 1 Joh. V. 7. have been exposed to formidable 
objections. The Palestine edition in its reading of 
those passages, has obtained a strenuous advocate 
in M. Griesbach. Having already laid the various 
readings of that edition before the reader "°, and 
specified some objections, deduced from the internal 
evidence, which preclude our considering them ge- 
nuine ; I shall now proceed, in the first place, to 
state the testimony on which their authenticity is 
supported, and then to offer some of tlie objections 
by which it appears to be invalidated. 

1. Of Manuscripts, ten '** only are cited in favour 

'*° Vid. supr. p. 254, &c. 

"* Prof. Birch having inserted t5 ^sS among the readinj^s 
of the Vatican MS. in the ActiJ of the Apostles, in an after 
thought, expressed in his Preface to the various readings of the 
Apocalypse, adds the following remark- Prscf ad Apoc. p. 
xxxix. " Cum schedas meas collationem hujus codicis com- 
plectentes, iterum intente examinarem, ?ii/til de lectione 
iv.itXria-ictv t5 0£«, nec alia lectione hoc loco adnokttiini inveyiio^ 
ita ut pro certo pronunciare non ausim, quid in codice nostro 
scriptum reperiatur. Vix tandem duhitare licet, si hie in codice 
nostro obtinuisset varietas lectionis, hanc intentiOfiem meam 
fugisse, cum locum hunc nolabilem in omnibus codd. qui mihi 
obvenerint, prae cseteris examinandum sumserim." Had we 
been deficient in other evidence, we might construe this omis- 



{ 512 ) 

of Kufioj in Act. XX. 28; not half that number'" frl 

sion into a proof, somewhat stronger than presumptive, that 
the true reading of the manuscript was 0e5. As this was the 
reading of the copy which the Professor collated, and no various 
reading has been marked, such must have been the reading of 
the manuscript. But this matter has been already put out of 
dispute: vid. supr. p. 283. n. ^^'^. 

**^ Vid. Griesb. n. in h. 1. The testimony of the Alexan- 
drine MS. has been challenged, in favour of the Palestine text, 
by M. Wetstein; I have already opposed to hi$ testimony the 
charge brought against it by Dr. Berriman ; who openly ac- 
cused him of having admitted to a common friend, that he sato 
the Byzantine reading in this MS. vid. supr. p. 285. li. ***'. 
To this charge M. Wetstein thought prudent to reply, bi/ ex^ 
jpla'ming aivay his concession of the point, and stating, that in 
admitting the fact, he was deceived by the transverse line of an 
E on the back of the page, which appeared through the vellum. 
This prevarication requires no refutation but what the MS. itself, 
on the most careless inspection, will furnish ; the transverse 
lines are so fine as to be frequently not discernible on the right 
side of the vellum ; and the E on the back of the page, to which 
M. Wetstein appeals, as lying out of the line of the 0, could 
never have produced the appearance which he asserted. We 
must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion of Dr. Woide, Praef. 
Cod. Alex. § vii. p. xxxi. '* Nolens igitur Wetstenius veri- 
tatem hujus lineolae diametrahs a Millio assertse confirmat, nee 
facile e corifessione eorum quae videraty poterit elabi. Quae cum 
jmpossibilis sit, credendum erit testimonio eorum, quorum 
auctoritatem sequi unice nunc licet, Junii, Felli, Waltoni, 
Grabii, Millii, Berrimani, et aliorum.** M. Griesbach however 
undertakes the defence of 02, as the genuine reading, which 
he opens with the following curious concession ; Griesb. 
Symbol. Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. " Disputatum etiam fuit, utrum 
Alex. Cod, h. 1. Qsk legat an o; ; id (quod cum librum hunc 
versaremus) admodum doluimus, manibus hominUm inepte curi- 
osorum ea folii pars quae dictum controversum continet, adeo 
detrita est, ut nemo mortidittm hodie certi quidquam discernere 
vossit. Con.", p. xiii. " Respondeo evanescere tenuissiraa linea, 



( 513 ) 
favour of oV in 1 Tim. iii. 16 : all that are extant 

prsesertim in codice tani vetusto eodemque rescripto, omnino 
potuit ut s'lmilis lineola in voce proxime sequenie Z<l>ANEPfiOH 
(EOANEPnOH) aliisque in locis 7ion paucis evanuit." rfe still 
however supports his opinion, and with sufficient confidence, on 
the following considerations. Id. ib. p. x. " At nihilo tamen 
minus confidenter equidem pronuntiare audeo, vera esse, quae ii 
tradiderunt, qui S? in codice hoc a prima manu extitisse affir- 
marunt. Nam non solum Alexandrinus et Regius ille rescrip- 
tUs, qui in Epistolis eandem prorsus recengionem exhibent, sese 
mutuo confirmant : verum etiam quod majus est, et omnem de 
utriusque lectione dubitandi locum prcecluditi o? certissime fuit 
Alexandrinae recensionis, quee in duobus istis Codicibus ex tat 
lectio. Patet ex consensu Cod. 17, versionum Coptae, iEthi- 
bpicae, Armenicse, et Syriacae posterioris, atque Cyrilli Alex- 
andrini ; immo e silentio omnium Alexaridrinorum scriptorum, 
qui ad locum hunc nunqudm provocarunt in litibus de Christ! 
divinitate agitatis." This however^ with the sophist's leave, is 
not to tell us what the MS; reads, nor even what it ought to 
read, but simply what he thinks it should have read. It would 
be sufficient to state, in answer to this silly and groundless con- 
fidence, that these examples are wholly beside the purpose of 
the present dispute ; as the Codex Alexandrinus is a MS. sui 
generiSf having a mixed text, the Gospels following a different 
recension from the Epistles. It becomes of course idle in the 
extreme to judge of it by any other MS. or Version; as M. 
Griesbach could have been scarcely unconscious ; in admitting 
Ibid. p. cxxxviii.— << Codici A. admistas esse lectiones haud 
paucas non Alexandrinas." And it is curious to observe, 
among the readings of this kind, which exist in the Alexandrine 
MS. we have positive authority for concluding, that fleos- 1 Tim. 
iii. 16. was included. The readings of Euthalius, it is notorious, 
correspond with this MS. vid. supr. p. 87. n. '* : but Euthalius 
certainly read Qeoi l(pa.n^u%, if any respect be due to the testi- 
mony of his editoiur ; vid. Zaccagn. ub. supr. p. 290. n. *^^ 
who collated his work with the readings of the Alexandrine 
MS. eonf. p. 86. n. ^\ 

Ll 



/^ 



( 5l4 ) 

and known, with the exception of tw6 "^ in fa- 
vour of the reading of M. Griesbach's corrected 
edition. 

2. Of Versions, the Sahidick, Coptick, Armenian, 
and margin of the later Syriack, support Ku^ »o? in 
Act. XX. 28 ; the same versions, with the Ethiopick 
and Erpenian Arabick, support ©V in 1 Tim. iii. 16: 
and all that are extant, except the Latin Vulgate 
and Armenian, the corrected reading of 1 Joh. 
V. 7 "^ 

3. Of the Fathers who have been cited in favour 
of the Palestine text, the following is a brief state- 
ment. (1.) On Act. XX. 28. St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, 
Eusebius, Didymus, S. Chrysostome, and Theophy- 
lact; S. Jerome, Lucifer, and Augustine; Theo- 
dorus Studites, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Sedulius, 
and Alcimus; the Apostolical Constitutions, the 
Council of Nice, and the second Council of Car- 
thage ; a catena quoting Ammonius, and a manu- 
script containing the Epistles of S. Athanasius '*^ 
(2.) On 1 Tim. iii. 16. Cyril Alexandrinus, S. Je- 
rome, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Epiphanius, Gela- 
sius Cyzicenus, and, on his authority, Macarius of 
Jerusalem'*^. (3.) On 1 Joh. v. 7. it has been 
deemed sufficient to state, that the fathers are 
wholly silent respecting it in the Trinitarian contro- 
versy ; while some of them even quote the subjoined 
verse, and strain that doctrine from it by an allego- 

•*^ Vid. Griesb. n. in h. 1. 

*^ Vid. Griesb. n. in h. 1. 

"5 Vid. Bengel. et Griesb. not, in loc. 

**^ Vid. Griesb. not. in loc. 



( 515 ) 

rical interpretation, which is plainly asserted in the 
contested passage "7. 

Such is the external testimony which is offered in 
favour of those verses ; as they are inserted in the 
Corrected Text. And yet, however formidable it 
may appear, it seems exposed to no less formidable 
objections. 

In reply to the testimony of Manuscripts quoted 
on this subject, it seems sufficient to state, that they 
are collectively descended from the edition of Euse- 
bius **^ and are consequently disqualified from ap- 
pearing in evidence, on account of his peculiar opi- 
nions. With respect to the few manuscripts which 
support the reading of Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
they particularly approximate to his edition, as con- 
taining the Palestine text'*^ and are consequently 
on that account, not entitled to the least degree of 
credit. 

The same observation may be made in reply to 
the testimony of Versions which has been adduced 
in evidence on this subject. None of them can lay 
claim to a degree of antiquity prior to the fourth 
century. In that age the principal of the antient 
versions were made; chiefly under the auspices of 

'^^ Vid. Person Let. to Travis, p. 373. 

**^ As the Gospels were divided by Eusebius, the Catholick 
Epistles were divided by Euthalius, vid. conf. p. 34. n. ^°. p. 86. 
n. *^ The latter were however corrected by Eusebius*s text, 
vid. supr. p. 86. n, *' : hence, as the Euthalian sections are 
generally prevalent in the Greek MSS. they sufficiently prove 
the descent of those MSS. from Eusebius's e4itioo, vid. supr. 
p. 130. n. ". 

'*^ Vid. Griesb. not. in loc. 

1 13 



( 516 ) 

Cohstantine the Great, who employed Eusebius to 
revise the text of Scripture'^''. The only proba- 
bihty consequently is, that they were accommodated 
to the Palestine edition ; and the principal versions 
cited on the present question bear internal evidence 
of the fact, as they coincide with the Palestine 
text, and are divided by Eusebius's sections. Such 
is particularly the case with the Sahidick and Cop- 
tick, the later Syriack and Latin translations'*'. 
They cannot, of course, be allowed any separate 
voice from the Palestine text, in deciding the matter 
at issue. 

This consideration seems to leave very little 
weight to the authority of the Fathers, who are 
adduced in evidence on this subject. With a few 
exceptions, w^hich are of no account, they also suc- 
ceeded the age of Eusebius ; in referring cursorily 
to those verses, they may be conceived to have 
quoted from his edition, as containing the received 
text of the age in which they flourished. I here 
except, as preceding his time, S. Ignatius, S. Ire- 
nseus, and the compilers of the Apostolical Consti- 
tutions, who have been quoted in support of Act. 
XX. 28. but their testimony is not entitled to the 
smallest respect, as derived to us through the most 
suspicious channels. The first and last of these 
witnesses are quoted from editions which have been 
notoriously corrupted'**, as it is conceived, by the 

'3° Vid. supr. p. 26. n.**. 

.'" Vid. supr. p. 322. n. 3°. conf. p. 81. n. ^\ p. 316. n. '*. 
"* Usser. Dissert, de Ignat. Epist. cap. vi. ap. Patr. Aposto^l. 
p. 211. Ed. Cleric Rot. 172^. " Quantum igitur ex hisce pos- 



( 517 ) 

Arians; and we consequently find, that the genuine 
works of Ignatius, read with the Byzantine Text 
instead of the Palestine '". And with regard to St. 
Irenaeus's evidence, it is quoted merely from a tran- 
slation which has been made by some barbarous 
writer, who, in rendering the scriptural quotations 
of his originar^*, has followed the Latin version, 
which agrees with St. Irenaeus in possessing the 
Palestine reading '^^ 

sum colHgere, sexto post Christum seculo prodiit amplior hose 
quce in nostris codicihus hodie fertur^ Ignatianarum Epistolarum 
Sylloge : et quidem (nisi me fallo) ex eadem officina, unde 
Apostolonim qui dicuntur Canones, novorum capitulorum xxxv. 
adjectione habemus auctos, et Constitutiones ita immutatas, ut 
pristinam quam ohtinuerant speciem, non (ut Epistolae nostrae) 
amiserint modh, sed plane perdiderint, Conf. Pears. Vind. Ignat. 
Prooem. cap. vi. p. 273. Bevereg. Cod. Can. Eccl. Prim. Illus- 
trat. P. I. cap. iii. J 1. p. 12. cap. xvii. § 4. p. 73. 

"3 Vid. supr. p. 275. n. ='2^ 

"+ Mill. Proleg. in Nov. Test. n. 368. " Sed cum Graeca 
(S.Ireneei) maxima ex parte interciderint, tum et in his quae 
cupersunt, Epiphanius aliique quibus ea debemus, baud semper 
citarint loca N. T. ad textum Irenaeanum, sed nonnunquam ad 
codices suos posteriores, seu etiam ex memoria. In Latinis 
autemy Interpreti id unum cures erat, ut Scripturce testimonia, 
quce in hoc opere occurrent, exprimerentur verbis Literpretationis, 
quce Celtis suis, totique Occidenti, jam in usu erat, Italicce, sive 
vulgatce." Conf. Sabatier. Praef. in Bibl. Ital. Tom. I. p. xl. 

'5 As so much pains have been used to shew that Cyril 
Alexandrinus read with the Palestine text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
vid. infr. p. 521. n. '^^ I may be ])ardoned in offering a few 
words to prove that S. Irenaeus read with the Byzantine in Act. 
XX. 28. (1.) St. Irenaeus is expressly engaged on the subject 
of the traditionary mysteries of the Church; Iren. adv. Hapr. 
Lib. III. cap. xiv. p. 201. ad init. * Si qua